Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 168 (since 2009-08-12 05:45:06)

Margaret

Showing comments 168 - 101
Page:

  • Is equality a 'nightmare' for liberal Zionists?
  • Sand blasters
    • Margaret October 21, 2009 at 11:01 pm

      Israel is a nation-state; why spend time talking about that? Isn't the essential issue the statehood, or not, of Palestine?

      The safety and the freedom of Palestinians are the core issues. They will remain core issues as long as the Palestinian people do not have the ability to protect and defend themselves.

      The focus on Israel seems to take all the oxygen out of the air. I would like to suggest that the focus be, unceasingly, on Palestine, and the people of Palestine.

      The reason this is an issue that involves every American, and the people of all the rest of the world, is that our freedom is not separate from the freedom of the Palestinians, or the Somalians, or the people of any country.

      Palestine - One State.

      Sovereign within a community of nations. Acknowledged, equal and free to choose - just like the rest of us.

      Predators and targeted assassination of elected political representatives make some people feel safe, while all they are doing is making of themselves a bulls-eye target.

      No. No thanks, been there, done that.

      Massive, system wide, fail - guaranteed, with a timeless warranty.

  • At Yom Kippur, shame over Madoff (and for Gaza--bupkus)
  • Among the Shministim-- excommunication and self-hatred
  • Letter to Gaza from a West Bank Palestinian
    • Margaret October 3, 2009 at 5:45 pm

      link to haaretz.com

      Last update - 07:36 03/10/2009
      Gilad Shalit in video: I've been longing for my freedom for a long time
      By Barak Ravid, Jonathan Lis, Avi Issacharoff and Jack Khoury, Haaretz Correspondents
      Tags: hamas, Gilad Shalit
      Family of abducted soldier okays broadcast of footage showing Gilad holding newspaper dated last month.

  • Leaked UN report echoes Goldstone and says Israeli blockade is leading to the 'de-development' of Gaza
    • Margaret September 18, 2009 at 6:52 pm with 4 replies

      What does branding IDF actions as war crimes accomplish?

      2.. It would be a refutation of the stated intention of Israeli officials to change international law to favor unequal standards of behavior, as now prevail in Israel.

      3. It would define actions which are understood as unacceptable on an international basis.

      4.. It would create a precedent regarding the use of warfare for perceived 'national interests'.

      5. It would eliminate the stated reason for various acts of 'insurgency'.

      6. It would stabilize the international situation beyond what it is currently.

      7. It would enable the inhabitants of Palestine to live with the same expectations enjoyed by you, your fellow citizens and the Israelis, as well as large numbers of others in the world.

      What is it that you have against recognizing the equality of others, Richard?

  • Conservative rabbis call on American Jews to sing Israeli anthem in synagogues to battle Goldstone!
    • Margaret September 22, 2009 at 8:56 am

      "To exagerate the desire for coherent residence and nationalism to racism is a fraud." Your accusation of fraud is unwarranted, RIchard, and appears to be projection, given the manner in which you misrepresent Zionism.

      In the 1800's, a national state came to be thought of by many as the best way to assure individual safety and political independence. Those who first developed plans for Israel did so for that purpose. The words of David Ben-Gurion, from 1944, describe what most people mean when they speak of Zionism, a political ideology that in essence contradicts the religious understanding of Zion, as Mooser points out, and as others have noted.

      "The Imperatives of the Jewish Revolution: All other revolts, both past and future, were uprisings against a system, against a political, social, or economic structure. [The Jewish] revolution is directed not only against a system but against destiny, against the unique destiny of a unique people.
      [...]
      Resisting fate is not enough. We must master our fate, we must take our destiny into our own hands! This is the doctrine of the Jewish revolution--not non-surrender to the Dispersion but making an end of it.
      [...]
      The meaning of the Jewish revolution is contained in one word--independence! Independence for the Jewish people in its homeland!
      [...]
      The Jewish revolution against our historic destiny must be a prolonged and continuing struggle, an enlistment of our own generation and even of those to come, and its road to success is not through seizure of power only but the gradual shaping of the forces mentioned above, that lead to independence, by girding ourselves with unyielding tenacity for changing our national destiny. There are only two means to this end: the ingathering of the exiles and independence in the homeland.
      [...]
      Both Palestine and the Jews of the world are part of a complex pattern of international relations which are beyond our control, but which continue to affect and influence our lives, despite all our efforts to master our fate and become independent. The involved pattern of the international scene bristles with dangers, both internal and external, which threaten the Jewish revolution.
      [...]
      Our independence will be shaped further by the conquest of labor and the land, by broadening the range of our language and its culture, by perfecting the methods of self-government and self-defense, by creating the framework and conditions for national independence and creativity, and finally--by attaining political independence.
      [...]
      The Jewish revolution against our historic destiny must be a prolonged and continuing struggle, an enlistment of our own generation and even of those to come, and its road to success is not through seizure of power only but the gradual shaping of the forces mentioned above, that lead to independence, by girding ourselves with unyielding tenacity for changing our national destiny
      [...]
      But we cannot forget for a moment that the Jewish revolution can succeed only through our devotion to our own unique needs and destiny, only by reliance on our own strength, only if we exert the most stubborn efforts to increase its power and to make it a wave of the future.
      [...]
      The real danger that threatens is, as I have said, not entirely from the avowed "traitors to the Covenant" but also from some of those prime movers of the Jewish revolution who do not have an uncompromising and single-minded devotion, who do not adhere without any moral, ideological or political qualification, to the unique requirements and demands of the Jewish revolution. [...]
      Only together, in one Hehalutz and in one Socialist-Zionist party in a united Jewish community and an undivided World Zionist Organization, can we assure Jewish immigration, (by whatever means) redeem and rebuild the land and fight our way through to victory.
      [...]
      The deserts of Israel were once inhabited in ancient times and even today are not entirely unpopulated. A beginning toward reclamation should be made by Jewish desert-dwellers, Bedouins, who will know how to live and work in tents and will be able to support, themselves like the Arab, but who along with possessing primitive Bedouin skills will also be familiar with modern cultural, scientific, and technical knowledge.
      [...]
      The ingathering of the exiles into a socialist Jewish state is in fact only a precondition for the fulfillment of the real mission of our people, we must first break the constricting chains of national and class oppression and become free men enjoying complete individual and national independence on the soil of a redeemed homeland.
      [...]
      I shall now say a few words in conclusion about the goal of our revolution: It is the complete ingathering of the exiles into a socialist Jewish state."

      link to zionism-israel.com

      Israel long ago left behind the socialist ideals of Ben-Gurion's era, but ethno-religous qualifications for citizenship remain embedded in the laws and institutions of Israel, and are rightly described as 'racist' - defined as a system of government fostering discrimination on the basis of 'race'. Racism is defined as a belief that 'race' is the primary determinant of human traits - a belief reflected in the insistence on recognition of Israel as a 'Jewish State.' What that means, in practical terms, is insitutionalized racism.

      (Wiki) In the case of institutional racism, certain 'racial' groups may be denied rights or benefits, or get preferential treatment, while reverse discrimination favours members of a historically disadvantaged group at the expense of those of a historically advantaged group.

      blockquote>The UN does not define "racism", however it does define "racial discrimination": according to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
      the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

      In practical terms, Zionism means that anyone, regardless of national heritage, able to provide proof of Jewish identity that meets the approval of whomever is severing as arbiter on behalf of the State of Israel has a 'right of return' to Israel and is entitled to Israeli citizenship. Those Palestinians who became refugees from Israel during periods of war are denied the right to return to their homeland; ownership of property from which they fled was claimed by the State. Palestinian descendants of refugees face particular restrictions on entry into and travel within Israel based on their identity as Palestinians.

      In practical terms, Zioinism means this:
      (excerpts from jewssansfrontieres)

      link to independent.co.uk

      For the Palestinian citizens of Israel, life is becoming a collective Kafkaesque experience. For years, their state has been determined to buttress its Jewish identity by legal, constitutional, cultural, and political means, in spite of the fact that one in five of its residents is an Arab. This latest series of bills is just another part of that effort. In addition to the discrimination they already face in all walks of life, Palestinians will not be able to mourn the Nakba, the loss of their homeland, or express their opposition to Israel as a Jewish state.

      It is not only that they have been excluded from belonging to their homeland, which has been claimed by people who immigrated there and made exclusively Jewish; it is not only that their people have been expelled, occupied or dispersed to all corners of the world; it is not only that they are legally unequal citizens and even treated as enemies in many areas of life by the very state in which they are citizens. They also have to accept this reality: express loyalty, show no opposition, and even refrain from mourning their loss in public.

      The expression of the natural feelings of losing their people and homeland, the yearning to rectify injustice, and the quest to transform Israel into a democratic state will be criminalised and punishable by law if the bills are enacted. The Arab citizens have to accept Jewish superiority anchored in constitution and law, accept that their homeland is not really theirs. They have to stop being themselves if they are to avoid being punished by the Jewish state; they have to stop being human altogether.

      People are short of words to describe what is happening in Israel. It is becoming clear that Israel is fearful not only about the future, it is most fearful about history – and for a reason. Israel can suppress among its Jewish citizens – those who enjoy the privileges of superiority and of taking over a whole homeland – the history of the Nakba and the reality of its continuation for every Palestinian. But Israel must believe that Palestinians are subhuman if it thinks that it can suppress their feelings about the Nakba and their desire for democracy and equality and the yearning for the return of their people. For Israel to face its fear of the future it must first face history. Instead, in defiance of human nature, it is hopelessly seeking to suppress it.

      The author is the director of the Arab Centre for Applied Social Research in Haifa, Israel, and a professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, Boston

      And this:
      link to independent.co.uk

      The Nakba bill, which was approved by the ministerial committee on legislation this week, is bad enough. But the bill for a compulsory oath, which is also due to go before the committee, would be a disaster. It would require anyone seeking citizenship to "make a declaration in which they commit to being loyal to the State of Israel as a Jewish, Zionist and democratic state, to its symbols and values and to serve the state as much as required through military or alternative service". Arab citizens at the moment are not required to do military service given the sensitivities of their situation.There are many in the British National Party who would no doubt like a similar oath over here. But any democracy committed to freedom of expression knows that the road to oppression lies though just such attempts to control the thoughts of its people.

    • Margaret September 18, 2009 at 7:01 pm with 3 replies

      Do we read your words stating that you don't find what others say persuasive? Yes - we do keep saying that, Richard.

      Do you represent the universe of others? No, you don't, Richard, sorry to disappoint you.

  • Goldstone went to Gaza's Ground Zero: the police massacre
    • Margaret September 18, 2009 at 7:15 pm with 5 replies

      So, Richard Witty - what good would branding Israel for war crimes do? Ever consider it might save the life of a policeman, or a child, or a teacher...

      Accountability is necessary for rsolution - and not just in Gaza.

  • Marty Peretz bridles at being called 'an elder'
    • Margaret September 18, 2009 at 7:34 pm

      If only it were possible to de-militate religion! And politics! And economics!

      Ah, well - one step at a time. I'm an elder, also, and both grateful for the comparative peace in my streets and humble in recognition of how fragile that peace is, grateful for the comparative freedom I enjoy and humbled by recognition that so many others do not have anywhere near as much.

      I share Pelosi's fear - bigotry is lethal, deadly - how many times must that lesson be relearned?

      No one has a right to be safer than others.

  • Ask and you shall receive: the US appears willing to help Israel stonewall the Goldstone report
    • Margaret September 18, 2009 at 7:44 pm

      What the US government can do, as many military personnel already do, is agree that there is no reason to continue the current wars.

      To do so will require great courage and great strength - and that's why it is so necessary for us to continue to speak out, so they know we have their back.

  • Gaza, and now Goldstone, expose rift between American Jews and Israel
    • Margaret September 18, 2009 at 2:35 am

      Israel: Political Assassination and International Law
      by Tanya Reinhart
      Yediot Aharonot, 30 March 2004.

      An extensive discussion has already taken place in Israel regarding the cost-benefit ratio of Yassin's assassination. But the question of justice has hardly been raised.

      According to international law, the execution of any person in an occupied territory is not allowed. The Geneva convention, born out of the horrifying experience of the second World War, sets limitations on the use of force even in times of war. The convention distinguishes between war and a state of occupation. Its fundamentals are, first, that occupied people are "protected", and that the occupier is responsible for their safety. Second, it determines that the occupied people have the right to fight for their liberation. International conventions are one of the means people have developed for self-preservation. Without them, there is a danger that the human race would annihilate itself - first the strong would wipe out the weak, and then each other.

      During its 37 years of occupation, Israel has already violated every article of the Geneva convention. But what it did now is unprecedented. As Robert Fisk stated it in the British Independent, "for years, there has been an unwritten rule in the cruel war of government-versus-guerrilla. You can kill the men on the street, the bomb makers and gunmen. But the leadership on both sides - government ministers, spiritual leaders were allowed to survive." Even when the leader advocates violence and terror, the norm has been that he may be imprisoned, but not killed.

      Ahmed Yassin viewed himself as struggling against the occupation. As reported in Yediot Aharonot, his demand was a full withdrawal of the Israeli army from the occupied territories, back to the borders of 1967. In 1993, Hamas agreed to the principles of the Oslo accords, but did not believe that Rabin would translate these principles into action, and urged the Palestinian people to remember that the occupation was not yet over. During the iron-fist period of Barak and Sharon, Yassin proposed a long term 'hudna' (cease fire), but he also believed that Israel would never end the occupation of its own will. "The enemy understands only the language of war, bombs and explosives" - he preached to his followers, and declared that "every Israeli is a target for us".

      The Geneva convention recognizes the right of the occupied people to carry out armed struggle against the occupying army, but not to use terror against civilians. Terror has no moral justification, and is not defended by international law. But it is necessary that we Israelis examine ourselves in this regard as well. What other way do we leave open for the Palestinian people to struggle for their liberation? Along the route of the wall in the West Bank, a new form of popular resistance has been formed in the last few months. Palestinian farmers whose land is being robbed sit on the ground in front of the bulldozers, accompanied by the Israeli opponents of the wall - the veterans of the Mas'ha camp. What could be more non-violent than this? But the Israeli army shoots at sitting demonstrators, like in Tiennamen square.

      The Israeli army blocks all options of non-violent resistance from the Palestinians. With the arrogant elimination of a leader and a symbol, as he was leaving a mosque, the army knowingly created a new wave of violence and terror. It is hard not to get the impression that terror is convenient for Sharon and the army. It enables them to convince the world that the Geneva protections do not apply to the Palestiians, because they have terrorists in their midst, and that, therefore, it is permitted to do anything to them.

      Since September 11th, as part of its “war against terror,” the U.S. has been pushing to destroy all defences provided by International law. But even the U.S. has not yet dared to publicly execute a spiritual-religious leader (of, for example, the Taliban in Afghanistan). Now Israel has determined, with U.S. blessing, that even this is permitted. Under military rule, Israel has become a leading force in the destruction of the very protections that humankind has established, out of World War Two, for its own preservation, protections that we too may need one day, as history has already shown us.

      link to tau.ac.il

  • Jimmy Carter, revolving-door prophet
    • Margaret September 23, 2009 at 7:47 am

      I live in a region where the immigration of Americans to already well-established if spread out communities of several different nations, including the indigent population, gained momentum in the mid-1800's. The cultural life of my community is very diverse. I enjoy interacting within that diversity and do feel I've benefited from it.

      Several branches of my extended family undoubtedly would have died out because of widespread famine in their homeland if not allowed to emigrate to the US. Likewise, other branches would have perished from war or political or religious persecution, depending on which century one considers. Are you of indigenous American origin? If not, when did your ancestors come to the US and why would you think they shouldn't have been allowed to do so?

      I am not aware of any reason to believe there is a deliberate push to change the demographics of the nation. I think that those people able to go to regions with a different culture and establish a stable situation are among the most capable of people. That perception is based on experience with such people in social and working life.

    • Margaret September 18, 2009 at 6:34 pm with 2 replies

      Todd, I agree that complaints about immigration seem perennial. What do you consider the demographic effects of legal immigration to be, other than the backlash to which you refer?

      The larger an institution gets, the fewer benefits seem to result for the majority affected by whatever the corporation is involved with.

    • Margaret September 18, 2009 at 6:26 pm

      Chris - How do you define 'socialism'? Corporate socialism, as it seems we've had for quite some time, where the government offsets the cost of business for the privilege of having businesses exist, doesn't seem to have worked very well.

      (Hope I got the right reply button this time!)

    • Margaret September 18, 2009 at 6:21 pm

      Todd, it wasn't a statement, it was a question. Your perception is that your views are those of an average American. At one time, my thought was that a great many Americans shared my views; looking at comments on weblogs, I conclude still that a great many do share some of my views. No one seems to share most of them.

      There are many, many people in the US, and the US is a huge territorial area. It seems likely to me that there is no 'average American' point of view - not even one wherein the average is of views regarding the same range of topics, if of differing opinions. Americans seem to differ considerably in their views depending on a great many factors. If you disagree, it would further discussion if you provided some basis to support your disagreement.

      My question ignored "real concerns'? Please, advise me what those concerns are in more detail, because they aren't obvious from DavidF's statement that "Nothinig in the health care proposals prevented illegal immigrants from receiving care." Do you believe that someone who does not have legal residency status should be prohibited from receiving medical care? If so, why?

      Your statement is "Few Americans have wanted the illegal or legal immigration that has taken place over the last 40+ years, and few have benefited." The majority of legal immigrants enter the country through immigration statutes that privilege the relatives of current US citizens; another large number have been admitted because of their association with the US militarysuring wars in other nations. Those without such relatives or such a connection must await random selection from a pool of applicants, unless they fit into other categories which relate to specific statutes of law - such as being a refugee, or a holder of specific skill sets. Information regarding the categories are available on-line, as are statistics regarding the number of slots available, the number admitted per year, etc.

      In referrnig to people as illegal, you are reducing them to one characteristic: their residency status. That's a bit like considering police officers or physicians or airline pilots as robots that shut off when they aren't in uniform, but a lot of people do think that way. To think differently is not to ignore someone else's concerns, but rather to have a different opinion. Voicing my own opinion is not an act of ignoring yours - that our opinions differ doesn't require that one of us change our mind, to agree with the other.

      I am willing to read your explanation of why you don't "want" immigrants, and why you feel that there is a lack of benefit from immigration, and to review links if you wish to provide them.

      Those religions with which I am familiar all have elements that I consider polarizing. I''ll go review Reverend Wrights 60 minutes interview. I am curious - is he as extreme as the Reverend Rick Warren, who seems to believe that the secular are genetically defective? Does he go as far as Reverend Hagee, who urges the elimination of people of other faiths? Or would he be satisfied if others just convert to his religion and political beliefs, as Ann Coulter encourages us all to do?

      No, I haven't seen the clips of Robert Reich. Got a link?

    • Margaret September 18, 2009 at 6:09 am

      DavidF, if you haven't done so, I would suggest you research securitization of assets before concluding that Mr. Kurtz is an authority to be trusted on the subject of "the financial meltdown", or sub-prime mortgages. If you have done so, then let's agree to disagree.

    • Margaret September 18, 2009 at 3:11 am

      jimby - One would expect that "overt contempt" would require a pattern of behavior, yes? But propaganda isn't fact based, it uses incidents, from which various connotations and implications are twisted.

    • Margaret September 18, 2009 at 3:02 am with 8 replies

      DavidF - You wish to prevent people from receiving medical care if they have not completed the procedures for obtaining legal residency status in the U.S.?

    • Margaret September 18, 2009 at 1:29 am

      Todd, I'm not dismissing valid concerns. I am questioning tactics and strategies which are used to manipulate public resentment, redirecting it for political gain, in a situation where actions are needed to reverse and change policies that bring about the circumstances underlying the resentment.

      I saw those policies being put into practice, witnessed the adverse consequences from the changes they brought about - while others were too preoccupied to notice, being busy cheering the war against Afghanistan and Iraq, playing the market and buying investment property and S.U.V's with the profits.

      Jeremiah Wright is no more a polarizing figure than many others; however, great attention has been focused on him. What is significant about the fact that Obama did legal work for ACORN?

      As I asked DavidF, please provide quotations of what you refer to as "dismissing the valid concerns" of others. Also, I think stating that those concerns are of "a vast majority of whites" requires substantiation.

      Please provide more information regarding your interesting statement that Robert Reich is excluding whites from stimulus jobs

      What does post-racial mean?

    • Margaret September 18, 2009 at 12:58 am

      DavidF - The Census Bureau annual survey was released last week. In 2008, the poverty rate rose to 13.2 percent (the highest in 11 years), while median household inicome fell to $50,303. Ten years earlier, adjusted for inflation, it was $51,295.

      Bush's tax cuts were worth $1.3 billion; the benefits were felt most by the top 1 percent of earners, while increases in special assessments, fees and sales taxes transferred an even greater proportion of the burden of taxation to those in lower economic classes.

      During the Bush administration, deregulation of industry and finance benefited corporate commerce while further marginalizing the small business owner, as well as increasing the cost of living for us all. The wars which have poured trillions of dollars into the pockets of special interests were a keynote of the Bush administration. Health care costs have risen steadily over the last several decades, as the numbers of those insured have dropped, just as steadily. The bailouts started under Bush and were in progress as Obama began his administration.

      I don't recall any well-organized campaigns by "small town whites" calling on President Bush or Republican party holders to change policies which were causing problems for a great many people long before Obama took office - and it really does seem that the majority were too well cushioned to feel any concern until finally betrayed by the failures of those policies.

      Now, suddenly, there is concern about "behind-the-scenes bank bailouts."

      Please provide examples to support your assertions of "overt...contempt for small town whites", and "dissembling on the issue of health coverage for illegal immigrants".

    • Margaret September 17, 2009 at 11:46 pm with 8 replies

      Todd, after the GOP's orchestrated efforts to deny the vote to large sections of rural America through various stratagems, it isn't any surprise that there would be a counterattack against efforts to expand voter registration - and given the size of the nation, it's not a surprise, either, when irregularities crop up in a particular group's activities. However, I am curious at your linking of Obama with ACORN, and also about comments regarding his religious associations. Could you give links to illustrate what exactly you mean, and also what comments about small town whites you consider particularly notable? Thanks.

  • Desperation: Canadian newspaper likens Naomi Klein to.... Goebbels
    • Margaret September 16, 2009 at 2:09 pm

      Londonstani could use some help at abu muqqwama.

      link to cnas.org
      September 16, 2009 | Posted by Londonstani - 9:51am

      Threats to public safety and national security in the UK come from a variety of sources; and not all of them are Islamic.

      We have seen the newly energised extreme right wing of UK politics flex its muscles on the streets of several cities. The last being the planned demonstration in front of a mosque in northwest London. While other extreme political strands like radical Islam make their hostility to mainstream British life clear. The extreme right-wing undermine it while claiming to defend it.
      [...]
      There is a tendency to focus so intently on Islamist extremism that "the enemy of my enemy" approach makes people who consider themselves open minded suddenly get up and go share a bench with those who admire Hitler.
      [...]
      Preserving and strengthening the kind of communities and country we want to live in involves guarding against those who seek to undermine both overtly and covertly.

  • annals of the msm
  • Traficant: Israel exported violence to the US
    • Margaret September 13, 2009 at 9:03 am

      Well, in fact a regular admission that the Israel lobby influences US policy towards the Middle East exactly as the Cuba lobby has driven post-Castro policy towards Cuba would be a healthy start. It’s quite routine for people to admit that the Cuba lobby has a ’stranglehold’ on US policy-making. Let’s start with that.

      Let us start with that!

      45 years - so many lives lost and ruined.

  • dual loyalty, in the news
    • Margaret September 13, 2009 at 9:15 am

      I'm happy to see Greenwald add his great skills to the debate. Important as it is to question the curtailment of civil rights and the abrogation of the Geneva Conventions in the U.S., something was missing.

      Connecting the dots was necessary.

      Coming out of the August lull with a roar here.

  • Would any Prime Minister in the world declare: 'I won't be a sucker!'
  • My wife offers her version of Kopechne's death
  • Berman's Iran drumbeat to Jewish leaders sure sounds a lot like Iraq drumbeat
    • Margaret September 11, 2009 at 11:35 am

      Richard - A suggestion for a book to be studied, roundtable fashion:
      Eyal Weizman's HOLLOWLAND: Israel's Architecture of Occupation
      link to versobooks.com

      Groundbreaking exposé of Israel’s terrifying reconceptualization of geopolitics in the Occupied Territories and beyond

      Hollow Land is a groundbreaking exploration of the political space created by Israel’s colonial occupation. In this journey from the deep subterranean spaces of the West Bank and Gaza to their militarized airspace, Weizman unravels Israel’s mechanisms of control and its transformation of the Occupied Territories into a theoretically constructed artifice, in which natural and built features function as the weapons and ammunition with which the conflict is waged.

      Weizman traces the development of these ideas, from the influence of archaeology on urban planning, Ariel Sharon’s reconceptualization of military defense during the 1973 war, through the planning and architecture of the settlements, to contemporary Israeli discourse and practice of urban warfare. In exploring Israel’s methods to transform the landscape itself into a tool of total domination and control, Hollow Land lays bare the political system at the heart of this complex and terrifying project of late-modern colonial occupation.

  • 'J Street' comes off as hip & the future, in NYT Mag piece
    • Margaret September 11, 2009 at 12:22 pm

      The symposium (Complex Terrain Laboratory on Urbicide: the Politics of Urban Destruction. link to terraplexic.org
      in case my first comment doesn't make it through moderation, with it's multiple site listings...) has some material that really is terrifying. Warfare in the present time so easily does escalate to genocidal character, while people quibble over the meaning of the word.

    • Margaret September 11, 2009 at 12:16 pm

      Regarding the frightening puzzle, another book recommendation:
      link to versobooks.com

      Cities Under Siege: The New Military Urbanism
      Stephen Graham
      Powerful exposé of how contemporary political violence now operates through sites, space and infrastructures of everyday life

      Cities have become the new battleground of our increasingly urban world. From the slums of the global South to the wealthy financial centers of the West, Cities Under Siege traces how political violence now operates through the sites, spaces, infrastructures and symbols of the world’s rapidly expanding metropolitan areas.

      Drawing on a wealth of original research, Stephen Graham shows how Western and Israeli military and security forces now perceive all urban terrain as a real or imagined conflict zone inhabited by lurking, shadow enemies, and urban inhabitants as targets that need to be continually tracked, scanned, controlled and targeted. He examines the transformation of Western militaries into high-tech urban counter-insurgency forces, the militarization and surveillance of March international borders, the labeling as “terrorist” of democratic dissent and Politics/Geography protests, and the enacting of legislation suspending “normal” civilian law. In doing so, he reveals how the New Military Urbanism now permeates the entire fabric of our urban lives, from subway and transport systems hardwired with high-tech “command and control” systems and the infection of civilian policy with all-pervasive “security” discourses; to the pervasive militarization of popular culture.

      Praise for Cities, War and Terrorism:
      “A brilliant, disturbing book.” — Derek Gregory, University of British Columbia

      “The first, original investigation of the urbanisation of modern conflict." — David Campbell, University of Durham

      Stephen Graham is Professor of Human Geography at Durham University, and previously taught at MIT, among other universities. Among his books are Cities, War and Terrorism, the Cybercities Reader and (with Simon Marvin) Splintering Urbanism. He writes for, among others, New Left Review, the Guardian and New Statesman.

      I've not yet gotten either this or Weizman's Hollowlands, but am interested in doing so after having read a symposium at Complex Terrain Laboratory on Urbicide: the Politics of Urban Destruction. link to terraplexic.org
      Martin Coward' has published a book by the same name; however, it is listed for $150. link to routledgepolitics.com
      From the publisher's site:

      Martin Coward is a lecturer in International Relations at the University of Sussex, UK. His research focuses on the nexus of identity, violence and territory. Currently, he is investigating the manner in which this nexus is exhibited in the contemporary relationship between city and war.

    • Margaret September 10, 2009 at 7:56 am

      ImTirtzu - The Zionist Freedom Alliance and the Zionist Organization of America seem to be more representative of extremist views that were used to support invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and now are being used to trump up a renewed commitment to war for "America's national interests" - continued war in Afghanistan, war against Pakistan and, in support of Zionist idealism, against Iran.

      The attempt to goad people into renewed commitment to war is particularly illuminating when viewed in context of the players involved, such as Elliot Abrams.

  • Elliott Abrams, the early years
    • Margaret September 11, 2009 at 3:33 pm

      Leftist radicals who think it's just fine that Kennedy was assassinated are devotees of the gold standard of imperialism: just war.

    • Margaret September 11, 2009 at 3:31 pm

      In memoriam: 9/11

    • Margaret September 11, 2009 at 3:30 pm

      “The former head of the ILD, Colonel Daniel Reisner, spoke frankly to the Israeli media in the aftermath about the role the body plays in pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable in war.

      “What we are seeing now is a revision of international law,” Reisner said. “If you do something for long enough, the world will accept it. The whole of international law is now based on the notion that an act that is forbidden today becomes permissible if executed by enough countries.

      “International law progresses through violations. We invented the targeted assassination thesis and we had to push it.”
      link to guardian.co.uk

  • Somewhere over the rainbow, Harvard neocons fly
    • Margaret September 11, 2009 at 7:42 am

      V - The disagreement comes from differing experience, I think, as well as differences in education. It is true that the more education one has, the wider one's understanding is. However, not everyone comes to the same conclusions based on the same information.

      I think that's because the knowledge one learns is added to one's personal experience, and from that is synthesized understanding. It is understandable that someone who is accustomed to living with people who act as if they 'rule' others, or as if other people are of less importance than such things as power or religious ideals, or money, or success, will perceive the world as one in which such values dominate. But such views do not dominate the personal lives of everyone.

      One disagreement I have with many people is the acceptance of the idea of 'just war' - as long as it is to attain ends they see as being in the interests they advocate. One agreement I seem to have with many is the need for unified resistence to the harm of commodification of elements of human life that should not be objectified in such a manner.

      Citizen's reference is well worth reading, and I'm going to post the introduction, and think more about what it says, and how what it says ties in with what Richard Seymour has been talking about on Lenin's Tomb.
      link to leninology.blogspot.com

      link to law.umkc.edu

      Introduction & History of the Bill of Rights

      The original Constitution, as proposed in 1787 in Philadelphia and as ratified by the states, contained very few individual rights guarantees, as the framers were primarily focused on establishing the machinery for an effective federal government. A proposal by delegate Charles Pinckney to include several rights guarantees (including "liberty of the press" and a ban on quartering soldiers in private homes) was submitted to the Committee on Detail on August 20, 1787, but the Committee did not adopt any of Pinckney's recommendations. The matter came up before the Convention on September 12, 1787 and, following a brief debate, proposals to include a Bill or Rights in the Constitution were rejected. As adopted, the Constitution included only a few specific rights guarantees: protection against states impairing the obligation of contracts (Art. I, Section 10), provisions that prohibit both the federal and state governments from enforcing ex post facto laws (laws that allow punishment for an action that was not criminal at the time it was undertaken) and provisions barring bills of attainder (legislative determinations of guilt and punishment) (Art. I, Sections 9 and 10). The framers, and notably James Madison, its principal architect, believed that the Constitution protected liberty primarily through its division of powers that made it difficult for an oppressive majorities to form and capture power to be used against minorities. Delegates also probably feared that a debate over liberty guarantees might prolong or even threaten the fiercely-debated compromises that had been made over the long hot summer of 1787.

      In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that. With ratification in serious doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of a series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification and the First Congress comes into session. The concession was undoubtedly necessary to secure the Constitution's hard-fought ratification. Thomas Jefferson, who did not attend the Constitutional Convention, in a December 1787 letter to Madison called the omission of a Bill of Rights a major mistake: "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."

      ames Madison was skeptical of the value of a listing of rights, calling it a "parchment barrier." (Madison's preference at the Convention to safeguard liberties was by giving Congress an unlimited veto over state laws and creating a joint executive-judicial council of revision that could veto federal laws.) Despite his skepticism, by the fall of 1788, Madison believed that a declaration of rights should be added to the Constitution. Its value, in Madison's view, was in part educational, in part as a vehicle that might be used to rally people against a future oppressive government, and finally--in an argument borrowed from Thomas Jefferson--Madison argued that a declaration of rights would help install the judiciary as "guardians" of individual rights against the other branches. When the First Congress met in 1789, James Madison, a congressman from Virginia, took upon himself the task of drafting a proposed Bill of Rights. He considered his efforts "a nauseous project." His original set of proposed amendments included some that were either rejected or substantially modified by Congress, and one (dealing with apportionment of the House) that was not ratified by the required three-fourths of the state legislatures. Some of the rejections were very significant, such as the decision not to adopt Madison's proposal to extend free speech protections to the states, and others somewhat less important (such as the dropping of Madison's language that required unanimous jury verdicts for convictions in all federal cases).

      Some members of Congress argued that a listing of rights of the people was a silly exercise, in that all the listed rights inherently belonged to citizens, and nothing in the Constitution gave the Congress the power to take them away. It was even suggested that the Bill of Rights might reduce liberty by giving force to the argument that all rights not specifically listed could be infringed upon. In part to counter this concern, the Ninth Amendment was included providing that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." Decades later, the Ninth Amendment would be pointed to by some judges, such as Justice Goldberg in his opinion in Griswold v Connecticut (a case recognizing a right of privacy that included a right to use contraceptives), as a justification for giving a broad and liberty-protective reading to the the specifically enumerated rights. Others, such as rejected Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, would dismiss the Ninth Amendment as analogous to "an inkblot on the Constitution," a provision so unclear in its significance that judges should essentially read it out of the Constitution.

      Most of the protections of the Bill of Rights eventually would be extended to state infringements as well federal infringements though the "doctrine of incorporation" beginning in the early to mid-1900s. The doctrine rests on interpreting the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as prohibiting states from infringing on the most fundamental liberties of its citizens. (For more, see page on INCORPORATION DEBATE.)

      In the end, we owe opponents of the Constitution a debt of gratitude, for without their complaints, there would be no Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "There has just been opposition enough" to force adoption of a Bill of Rights, but not to drain the federal government of its essential "energy." George Washington agreed: "They have given the rights of man a full and fair discussion, and explained them in so clear and forcible manner as cannot fail to make a lasting impression."

      THE FIRST 10 AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AS RATIFIED BY THE STATES ("The Bill of Rights")**
      Amendment I
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
      Amendment II
      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
      Amendment III
      No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
      Amendment IV
      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
      Amendment V
      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
      Amendment VI
      In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
      Amendment VII
      In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
      Amendment VIII
      Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
      Amendment IX
      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
      Amendment X
      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      **Because the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are not specific guarantees of individual liberties, in some usages "The Bill of Rights" refers only to the first eight amendments.

  • Christison: 'Under heavy pressure, Obama is being beaten down'
    • Margaret September 3, 2009 at 3:24 am

      Any thoughts about this?

      Turkey and Armenia: Normalization of Relations
      Ian Kelly
      Department Spokesman
      Washington, DC
      August 31, 2009

      The United States warmly welcomes the joint statement made today by Turkey and Armenia, with Swiss participation, outlining further steps in the normalization of their bilateral relations. It has long been and remains the position of the United States that normalization should take place without preconditions and within a reasonable timeframe. We urge Armenia and Turkey to proceed expeditiously, according to the agreed framework as described in today’s statement. We remain ready to work closely with both governments in support of normalization, a historic process that will contribute to peace, security and stability throughout the region.

      link to state.gov

  • BlackRock divests from Leviev, an 'NYT' advertiser (and guess who doesn't report it)
    • Margaret August 31, 2009 at 6:02 pm

      Perception, Mr. Witty, is all a matter of the beholder, a matter of judgment, reflective of one's bias. The traditional wisdom learned at your mom's knee didn't include that?

      Definition of stupid: Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes. (3)
      Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless.

      Have a little Santanya with your morning beverage; sweeten that beverage further with a dose of humility.

      Vanity preoccupies your thoughts; one understands why.

  • How about, let's stop deifying the nation-state
    • Margaret August 31, 2009 at 10:52 pm

      Justice, identity, security, independence.

    • Margaret August 31, 2009 at 10:41 pm with 1 replies

      Let's let "the Ron Paul people" talk for themselves.

      Cognitive dissonance isn't something that happens only to others. It takes a lot of effort to avoid the quake of tectonic forces. How are you holding up?

    • Margaret August 31, 2009 at 8:51 pm

      Your perception: "...the punitive nature of the nation-state would not be an accurate description."

      So why not international citizenship, a result from "...institution building" which creates space for rights not limited by nationality - rights equal for Isareli and Palestinians.

      (Oh, I forgot to whom I was addressing the question.)

      That's right: gambling casinos represent a great win, a "real change in status."

      (Interesting: the Israeli right; Palestinian rights...)

    • Margaret August 31, 2009 at 7:40 pm

      The Walls are absurd if one finds absurdity of value. They serve well to give a sense of security, one illusionary but appearing concrete.

      "Life in fortress-Israel can be a comfortable buffer to reality." Reality intrudes in the form of Trojans. Old myths still have meaning, even if not visible in the form one is accustomed to receiving that meaning.

      Perception, limited by bias, took Troy down.

    • Margaret August 31, 2009 at 7:33 pm

      Ever heard of Joseph Campbell?

    • Margaret August 31, 2009 at 7:32 pm

      Empasis on "acceptance"

    • Margaret August 31, 2009 at 7:32 pm with 2 replies

      "What’s the point of pursuing a path that will lead to mass bloodshed?"

      How casually you ignore the dead of Israel (we won't even consider the attitude toward "the other").

      Latest figures from if Americans knew (dot) com
      Israelis and Palestinians Killed in the Current VIolence
      6,348 Palestinians 1,072 Israelis
      at least
      killed since September 29, 2000.

      (those who value this information - please donate to the site)

  • Uri Avnery is against BDS
    • Margaret September 1, 2009 at 2:12 pm

      The addition of other voices here is wonderful to see.

    • Margaret September 1, 2009 at 2:04 pm

      Rw: "The concept of consent of the governed is important. If not attention is brought to invite the participation or concerns of Zionists to a table, then the design will exclude the current majority."

      The governed include all sides. The views and needs of one side have dominated. The aspirations and successes, as well as the fears and defense, of one side have dominated.

      I view your example of a couple of recent conferences in the context of a history in which the dominate concern has been of those whom you consider "functionally excluded".

      Including another's perspective is not an act of exclusion.

      What one experiences does dominate one's perceptions.

    • Margaret August 31, 2009 at 11:01 pm with 2 replies

      Don't take cognizance of cultural Zionism, RW? The only Zionism is RW's Zionism?

      The Magnes Zionist
      Self-Criticism from an Israeli, American, and Orthodox Jewish Perspective
      Los Angeles Jews Respond Positively to Neve Gordon’s Call to Boycott Israeli Academic Institutions
      Saturday, August 22, 2009 7:43 PM
      This has got to be one of the funniest stories of the dog days of August. Never Gordon, a leftwing professor at Ben-Gurion University, published an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, supporting the BDS movement (that's boycott, divestment, and sanctions) against Israel. In other words, Gordon called for a cultural and academic boycott of Israel here.
      Some Los Angeles Jews have responded by threatening to cut-off donations to Ben-Gurion University.
      ...which is, of course, what Gordon was calling for!
      So maybe this should now be the tactic of supporters of BDS in Israel: Get leftwing academics from all the universities to call for boycotts, and then angry Jews will response by cutting off funds from their university.
      I know, I know. Gordon is not the first Israeli academic to join the BDS movement. Let's not forget Ilan Pappe when he was still at Haifa, and the late Tanya Reinhart, who did the same while at Tel Aviv. And there are others.
      But Gordon is the first Israeli academic to get an op-ed in a major metropolitan newspaper with a major Jewish community, and the largest concentration of Israelis outside of Israel (I think). If the LA Jews don't give their money to BGU, maybe they can be convinced not to give their money to any of the Israeli universities.
      Except to Bar-Ilan and the pseudo-university, the College of Judea and Samaria.

    • Margaret August 31, 2009 at 9:53 pm with 2 replies

      "When you add the last two phrases, you throw shit on your own argument, asking that it be ignored or resented."
      As we all do, often. You, too.

      "The “digs” convince (or at the minimum confuse) Jews that the intent of BDS is punitive, more than transformative."

      When confused, one begins to question. From questions may come new answers, and the potential of confusion is such that those answers may lead one out of the box that present understanding creates.

      Unchallenged perceptions create boxes so concrete as to not let in air or light. The death of individuals is easily accepted by some. But the potential lethality contained within such limited perception, as with bigotry, can be so great as to encompass the world. Why is the popular interest in Israel international, not limited to an audience that fits within the confines of the theater? The threat is that large.

      The violence that slaughtered youths graduating from a police academy wasn't about the Jews and the Arabs. The limits of violence now are of will, whereas before concrete limits were imposed by the range of one's weapon. To beat someone with a fist, conquer with a horde, eradicate by a fleet of aircraft, all are acts different from triggering fission capable of annihilating a world.

      A "dig" implies contact, and that brings it back down to you and me - self and other.

    • Margaret August 31, 2009 at 8:28 pm

      "You demonstrate the vagueness that I was referring to, in description of the BDS movement."

      A plenishment of websites discuss BDS; the detail provided is insufficient to satisy? Willful ignorance always has purpose.

      Perhaps analysis of the results will help resolve the annoying feeling that prompts your continued questioning? The following link is offered to further the success of your "sincerely dedicated consciousness raising effort, of mutually humanizing the other."

      "Haaretz reports that Lev Leviev's Africa Israel Investments faces
      insurmountable debt obligations and will be forced to negotiate a restructuring
      with his creditor banks. (TikunOlam, richardsilverstein dot com)

  • Scott McConnell on Christopher Caldwell's 'Reflections'
    • Margaret August 31, 2009 at 6:16 am with 1 replies

      "It’s good that you point out the demographic issues. A fairly consistent problem with secular liberalism is that secular liberals do not reproduce at replacement rates."

      "Western Europe has become so culturally and demographically listless that perhaps only the pressure of Islam can inspire it to assert itself as a civilization worth preserving."

      The "exceptional", pushing the demographic argument, seeking to bind support by arousing fear that dominant status will be lost.

      Not everyone thinks the same way, thank goodness. Not everyone considers their religion, heritage or status a quality that can be preserved only through patterns such as class loyalty, patriarchal authority, marriage within the tribe, a high birth rate, and the dominance, exclusion or eradication of others different from them in some way considered significant.

      Not everyone shares the same nightmare.

      .

  • Blankfort's response to Avnery on boycott issue
    • Margaret August 31, 2009 at 6:52 am

      Global Boycott-Divestment-Sanction movement brings needed change:
      link to richardsilverstein.com

      Witty: "The use of force is itself designed to coerce, to eliminate free choice. Not to persuade..."

      (wiki) Persuasion is a form of social influence. It is the process of guiding people and oneself toward the adoption of an idea, attitude, or action by rational and symbolic (though not always logical) means. It is a strategy of problem-solving relying on "appeals" rather than coercion.

      Seems to be confusion hidden in Richard Witty's rhetoric; BDS is not a use of coercive force. It is withdrawal of support, a form of persuasion.

  • 'Forward' source rationalizes kidney scheme on basis of 500-year-ago Jewish expulsion
    • Margaret September 1, 2009 at 5:01 am

      Edit: 2nd paragraph of 9.1.09 4:457 comment not part of JTA story

      Bush administration U.S. attorney firings controversy
      link to opencongress.org

      "In late 2006, the Justice Department fired (or asked for the resignation of) eight U.S. attorneys all previously appointed by President George W. Bush. Earlier in 2006, a provision included in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act allowed these positions to be filled by the administration without U.S. Senate approval. In early 2007, hearings were held on the matter in both the House and Senate Judiciary committees on the firings. Several of the fired attorneys testified that they had been contacted by members of Congress or executive officials about pending cases shortly before their termination. Such contact by members of Congress is a violation of both House and Senate rules. ”

    • Margaret September 1, 2009 at 4:57 am

      "Eventually there won’t be enough partisans in the Dept. of Justice, e.g. Paul McNulty **, to derail the FBI from publicly and incontrovertibly exposing the Lobby to a critical majority of the American people, and more importantly, in making its money radioactive enough to break its carrot and stick lock on Congress."
      Colin Murray August 31, 2009 at 5:06 pm

      Filing sheds light on FBI probe
      By Ron Kampeas · March 27, 2007
      "WASHINGTON (JTA) – The FBI was considering expanding its investigation into AIPAC and classified information leaks in early 2005 when the pro-Israel lobbying powerhouse fired two staffers already under scrutiny, according to court documents.In a memorandum filed last Sept. 22 and unsealed last week, defense lawyers for Steve Rosen, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s former foreign policy chief, and Keith Weissman, its former Iran analyst, claimed for the first time that the FBI had considered expanding its criminal investigation.AIPAC’s March 2005 firing of Rosen and Weissman, and its decision several months later to stop paying their legal fees, headed off the expanded investigation, according to the sworn defense filing. The filing stems from a defense effort to force AIPAC to resume paying legal fees.
      In late 2006, the Justice Department fired (or asked for the resignation of) eight U.S. attorneys all previously appointed by President George W. Bush. Earlier in 2006, a provision included in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act allowed these positions to be filled by the administration without U.S. Senate approval."

      Internal Probe Slams Bush Justice official for illegal hiring
      By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers
      Tuesday, January 13, 2009
      WASHINGTON — A former acting Justice Department civil rights chief illegally favored conservative job applicants as "real Americans,'' kept liberal lawyers off key cases and lied in Senate testimony to conceal his misconduct, internal investigators say in a report made public Tuesday
      [...]
      The 70-page report, the last to be publicly released on four joint internal investigations stemming from the 2007 scandal over politicization of the Justice Department, was completed in July but had been kept secret pending the outcome of the criminal inquiry.

  • Gamechanger? Jeff Skoll, Richard Branson show up in Bi'lin
    • Margaret August 30, 2009 at 9:12 pm

      V, you do a good job of presenting many of the problems we have and face now. You fail to convince that the aftermath of your revolution would be better, or that it is possible to solve our problems through a revolution.

      Socialists in the UK are engaged in directed action against specific issues - against the war in Afghanistan, against the BNP (a political party), in support of BDS, etc.

      National unity in the US - of those, of whatever ideology, who agree that people are more important than monetary value - must be built through unification of diverse groups within a huge area of terrain. That's a challenge not faced by the socialists of the UK.

      It's been a while since I first became aware of Israel's activities, and began to question what was going on. Now it seems clear that others, perhaps including Richard Witty, are determined that their intentions will prevail. The response to Israel's actions is not because of any one's intention; it arose spontaneously within individuals of diverse interests, and of international locale.

      The people who seem most ready to launch a revolution in the US appear to be those interests that back Israel. Big guns and small are directed back against the diverse opposition to Israel. Efforts such as yours to promote a revolution against "the elites", apparently "from the left", do not appear to be ready to launch, while they serve to splinter opposition to Israel and divert attention, rather than focusing attention on specific actions that can be taken without a revolution.

      I would suggest that there is more purpose to effort directed toward important issues, rather than in an attempt to raise a revolution.

    • Margaret August 30, 2009 at 4:52 am

      About where you went? baby, bathwater;
      ...and seadragons.

      "Actually that phrase (law and order) is backward, it should really be “order and rule.”
      No, if backward, it would be "order and law."

    • Margaret August 30, 2009 at 4:29 am

      V. - You state "It becomes apparent that the powerful, those who make the rules...". I don't see how continuing on to discuss what use is made of rules by those whom you assert make them changes the meaning of the assertion - nor do I consider it to support the assertion.
      "...people protested, as an example, the Iraq war everywhere, did that stop it from happening?" I don't see how that example serves as an illustration of the powerful making the rules. Nor is it an example of the powerful ignoring "the law" because laws regarding warfare are specific to actions, and don't prohibit war.
      "Just war" is a theoretical framework used to argue that war is good and necessary. The Geneva Conventions are international agreements signed by various nations that set limitations on the way war is waged. The Bush administration waved a rhetorical wand and said the Geneva Conventions didn't apply to non-state actors. They didn't ignore "the law", they disputed that areas of international agreement applied to "terrorism". The Supreme Court disagreed in certain respects. The controversy continues.
      Just War theory is a doctrine of military ethics of Roman philosophical and Catholic origin studied by moral theologians, ethicists and international policy... (wiki)
      "Just war doctrine is meant to be of use to Americans evaluating conflicts in the war on terrorism..." from catholic(dot)(slash) library link
      "Some of those who have attempted to justify war include Aquinas, Grotius, and Pufendorf." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

      "...you say we must have the rule of law in order to have “law and order.” "You"? I don't recall saying that - if you attribute words to me, please quote my exact words, or provide a reference to what you think you are paraphrasing.

      "Law and order," as used by the television show, refers to the investigation of a crime, alleged or enacted, to develop evidence for the subsequent trial of those alleged to have committed the crime. In that I consider it more purposeful to indict specific individuals for crimes, demonstrate by evidence both the crime and guilt and, if there is a determination of guilt, then exact punishment, it does reflect what I consider more appropriate action than punishment of a class for perceived guilt, with attendant punishment of society by the revolutionary action required to accomplish that purpose. But it's not a phrase I customarily use. - because as a "short hand" reference, it leads where you ended up.

    • Margaret August 29, 2009 at 10:51 pm with 4 replies

      "It becomes apparent that the powerful, those who make the rules, insist on legality merely to preserve the power relations that serve them or to maintain their occupation and colonialism."

      V. can you provide a source, support, for the view that "the powerful ... make the rules."
      Do others have suggestions for synopses on the origin of common law?

      It seems to me that the powerful agree to limitation of their power when forced to do so by those who themselves derive power from their unified mass numbers.

  • Joel Kovel on Naomi Klein and Durban
    • Margaret August 31, 2009 at 8:07 am

      "The experience of the European and later of Sephardic Jewish community, was of necessity."

      It was perceived as being of necessity, even as the inequality accorded to the varying classes of Israeli citizenship is perceived as arising from necessity.

      Perception of itself isn't so concrete as to forcibly result in a fixation of conditions - perception is relative to the person making judgments about conditions.

    • Margaret August 31, 2009 at 7:52 am

      Richard Witty, are you so accustomed to defining exactly who and who is not a Jew that you've fallen into the habit of defining the characteristics of other roles in a similar fashion?

      How stern your tone, how self-assured your prescription of "correct" behavior - the perfect pattern of a patriarch. From which "persuasion," all are to become amenable to your direction?

      Only those well trained to comply for fear of exclusion will do so - you misjudge those whom you address. They are not of a community from which you can command exclusion.

    • Margaret August 30, 2009 at 4:42 am

      Citicism - Bigotry always holds the potential for lethality, doesn't it?

  • The Lion of the Senate could be a--
    • Margaret August 30, 2009 at 5:07 am

      Additional seats, increase the number of representatives in proportion to the numerical populations of states? The result would be: more interests would have a chance for representation, it would obviate gerrymandering, as currently maintained, and offset the influence of money. Arguably.

  • neocons linger. why lord?
  • What would I.F. Stone have said about neocons' Israel-first agenda?
    • Margaret August 29, 2009 at 10:16 pm

      "...are you aware of the millions who have been murdered in these elite interests?...people have been degraded and their lives ruined for generations. What form of punishment do you think best meets the crimes of such magnitude by these reprobates."

      V. - Is punishment your primary concern and interest when analyzing the system you criticize?

Showing comments 168 - 101
Page:

Comments are closed.