Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Do we really want a President more in love with Israel than the US?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Do we really want a President more in love with Israel than the US?

    US Senator and likely Presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman is touring the Middle East. His visit will most likely be described as a success. And why not?

    Lieberman conversed with Ariel Sharon and top Israeli leaders. He vowed time and again to stand by Israel in its "war on terrorism", and its right to "self-defense." He managed to completely ignore the elected Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, meeting instead with Saeb Erekat, the former head of the Palestinian negotiation team. When asked about who was to blame for a bloody two years of occupation and bloodshed, he uttered, the "blame goes on the terrorists," the Palestinians of course.

    With that said, Lieberman managed to squeeze in a few statements about the need for peace, and Palestinian reforms, and a Palestinian crackdown on terrorism, and Palestinian willingness to negotiation and a new Palestinian leadership, etc. To be fair, Lieberman did briefly address the humanitarian needs of the Palestinians. But of course, it was not Israel who received the blame for the growing humanitarian catastrophe, but the "terrorists."

    But once again, the trip was a "complete success" if one considers official American policy in the Middle East; scolding and blaming the Palestinians, pretending that there is no such thing as a deadly Israeli occupation, illegal settlements or even occupied territories (For now, according to Donald Rumsfeld, they are known as "so-called occupied territories).

    I followed the news of Lieberman's visit to the Middle East, although I expected nothing out of the ordinary, no surprises, until he visited Saudi Arabia, another leg on his tour, one mainly aimed at building war alliances against Iraq.

    In an interview with Saudi Arabia's English daily, Arab News, on Dec 26, Lieberman mentioned something rather interesting. Despite my previous knowledge of the man's undaunted commitment to Israel and to its interests, I couldn't help but pause with surprise at a seemingly fleeting comment he made while comparing, or refusing to compare, Iraq to Israel. "But Israel is not a danger to its people and its neighbors in a way that Iraq under (Iraqi President) Saddam (Hussein) is. Obviously, from an American point of view, we feel over the years that the UN has been slanted against Israel and doesn't give Israel a fair deal," Lieberman told Arab News.

    Considering the pro-Israeli rhetoric we often hear coming from US officials, especially those running for an office of some sort, I wondered to myself: what is so different about Lieberman's statement from those uttered by other top US officials?

    For one, Lieberman's statement, although short, managed to squeeze in an unprecedented number of inaccuracies. The skill needed to pull off such a declaration is indeed impressive. But more, Lieberman's statement appeared to subscribe more to the official Israeli viewpoint, and that of pro-Israeli lobby groups in the US, than that of the US administration itself.

    Needless to say, Lieberman's statement is false. Although, it is President George Bush who is often ridiculed by late night comedians in the US for not knowing a great deal about history or world politics, Lieberman's statement, if genuine, suggests that the possible Presidential candidate is much less informed. For one, while Iraq did indeed invade Kuwait and fought a bitter war with its neighbor Iran, Israel has shown more hostilities to its neighbors than any other Middle Eastern country. Israel has attacked Egypt on several occasions, unleashed a deadly war on Lebanon, systemically attacked Palestinians, invaded parts of other Arab states, struck as far as Tunisia and Iraq, and is currently occupying the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, the Sheba farms, and the Golan Heights. Unlike Iraq's invasions, Israel's are long lived.

    Following the Iraqi army invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the United Nations (thanks to the speedy efforts of the United States) passed a tough, straight-forward Security Council resolution demanding that Iraq pull out, or face war. Even before diplomacy received a fair chance, the US piled up untold armies and "bombed Iraq to the stone age." Iraq is yet to escape the curse of that stone age, as promised by former President George Bush Senior, as the deadly sanctions not only crippled the country's economy, but wasted an entire generation, who died as a result of food shortages, lack of medicine or were poisoned by depleted Uranium. Even more, the US has just managed to push through yet another tough UN resolution, threatening Iraq with "serious consequences" if it fails to comply with the weapon inspectors, no matter how humiliating their demands may be. Moreover, the US is already "screaming foul" before Iraq even got the chance to defy the inspectors.

    But Lieberman, a man who will soon promote himself to the American public as a man of integrity and truth, is alleging that the UN is ˜being tough on Israel.' If the honorable Senator is referring to the number of UN Security Council or General Assembly resolutions passed since the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948, either condemning an atrocity committed against Arabs and Palestinians, or demanding Israeli compliance with international law, I have to admit, the UN has spent a great deal of time and has wasted a lot of ink highlighting these matters.

    I cannot help but wonder about the source of protest voiced by Lieberman, considering that Israel, who violated more UN resolutions than any other country in the world (68 unimplemented resolutions to be exact), is the country the least punished for failing to adhere to international law. While slapping strict sanctions on some countries, or waging wars on others, the United States, a country that vows to stand for freedom, justice and democracy, has soured its own ties in the Middle East and has severely harmed its own interests for the sake of Israel's transgressions, defending its massacres, often blaming the victims and blocking the deployment of unarmed UN observers to provide the least protection possible for occupied Palestinians.

    Was Senator Lieberman really honest when he made such claims? Is Sharon, the man who openly gloats over the deaths of Palestinians, and the Israeli government that is openly entertaining the expulsion of the Palestinian people no threat to its neighbors?

    But again, why should I even raise such an issue as if I indeed held any expectations of the pro-Israeli Senator? On May 2, 2002, as the bodies of scores of Palestinians killed by the Israeli army in the West Bank were decomposing in the streets of Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah and elsewhere, Lieberman rushed to the Senate, co-authoring a resolution (S. Res. 247). The urgent resolution didn't call on Israel to allow the Red Cross to collect the Palestinian corpses or to allow water supplies to reach Jenin or Nablus. Instead, it equated the US fight against terrorism with Israel's ruthless attacks on heavily populated Palestinian centers. The resolution passed quickly, yet Lieberman's fight for Israel is yet to fade. He continues to blame the victim, to fight for "security" for the occupier, he wants to attack Iraq and he blames the UN for being too harsh on Israel.

    True, Lieberman's actions are no surprise. They are very much in tune with his political philosophy. After all, it was no coincidence that he was the top recipient of pro-Israeli PAC contributions during the 2000 election cycle. I only wish, however, that Lieberman didn't tell journalists in Israel that his visit was aimed at fostering peace and reviving the stalled peace process between Israel and the Palestinian leadership. Lieberman defended Israel, blamed Palestinians and called for war on Iraq. Such an agenda can hardly be argued to be that of a peacemaker, although one can hardly deny that according to today's standards of American foreign policy, the Senator's Middle East tour was a "great success." Indeed.

  • #2
    US Senator and likely Presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman is touring the Middle East. His visit will most likely be described as a success. And why not?

    Lieberman conversed with Ariel Sharon and top Israeli leaders. He vowed time and again to stand by Israel in its "war on terrorism", and its right to "self-defense." He managed to completely ignore the elected Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, meeting instead with Saeb Erekat, the former head of the Palestinian negotiation team. When asked about who was to blame for a bloody two years of occupation and bloodshed, he uttered, the "blame goes on the terrorists," the Palestinians of course.

    With that said, Lieberman managed to squeeze in a few statements about the need for peace, and Palestinian reforms, and a Palestinian crackdown on terrorism, and Palestinian willingness to negotiation and a new Palestinian leadership, etc. To be fair, Lieberman did briefly address the humanitarian needs of the Palestinians. But of course, it was not Israel who received the blame for the growing humanitarian catastrophe, but the "terrorists."

    But once again, the trip was a "complete success" if one considers official American policy in the Middle East; scolding and blaming the Palestinians, pretending that there is no such thing as a deadly Israeli occupation, illegal settlements or even occupied territories (For now, according to Donald Rumsfeld, they are known as "so-called occupied territories).

    I followed the news of Lieberman's visit to the Middle East, although I expected nothing out of the ordinary, no surprises, until he visited Saudi Arabia, another leg on his tour, one mainly aimed at building war alliances against Iraq.

    In an interview with Saudi Arabia's English daily, Arab News, on Dec 26, Lieberman mentioned something rather interesting. Despite my previous knowledge of the man's undaunted commitment to Israel and to its interests, I couldn't help but pause with surprise at a seemingly fleeting comment he made while comparing, or refusing to compare, Iraq to Israel. "But Israel is not a danger to its people and its neighbors in a way that Iraq under (Iraqi President) Saddam (Hussein) is. Obviously, from an American point of view, we feel over the years that the UN has been slanted against Israel and doesn't give Israel a fair deal," Lieberman told Arab News.

    Considering the pro-Israeli rhetoric we often hear coming from US officials, especially those running for an office of some sort, I wondered to myself: what is so different about Lieberman's statement from those uttered by other top US officials?

    For one, Lieberman's statement, although short, managed to squeeze in an unprecedented number of inaccuracies. The skill needed to pull off such a declaration is indeed impressive. But more, Lieberman's statement appeared to subscribe more to the official Israeli viewpoint, and that of pro-Israeli lobby groups in the US, than that of the US administration itself.

    Needless to say, Lieberman's statement is false. Although, it is President George Bush who is often ridiculed by late night comedians in the US for not knowing a great deal about history or world politics, Lieberman's statement, if genuine, suggests that the possible Presidential candidate is much less informed. For one, while Iraq did indeed invade Kuwait and fought a bitter war with its neighbor Iran, Israel has shown more hostilities to its neighbors than any other Middle Eastern country. Israel has attacked Egypt on several occasions, unleashed a deadly war on Lebanon, systemically attacked Palestinians, invaded parts of other Arab states, struck as far as Tunisia and Iraq, and is currently occupying the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, the Sheba farms, and the Golan Heights. Unlike Iraq's invasions, Israel's are long lived.

    Following the Iraqi army invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the United Nations (thanks to the speedy efforts of the United States) passed a tough, straight-forward Security Council resolution demanding that Iraq pull out, or face war. Even before diplomacy received a fair chance, the US piled up untold armies and "bombed Iraq to the stone age." Iraq is yet to escape the curse of that stone age, as promised by former President George Bush Senior, as the deadly sanctions not only crippled the country's economy, but wasted an entire generation, who died as a result of food shortages, lack of medicine or were poisoned by depleted Uranium. Even more, the US has just managed to push through yet another tough UN resolution, threatening Iraq with "serious consequences" if it fails to comply with the weapon inspectors, no matter how humiliating their demands may be. Moreover, the US is already "screaming foul" before Iraq even got the chance to defy the inspectors.

    But Lieberman, a man who will soon promote himself to the American public as a man of integrity and truth, is alleging that the UN is ˜being tough on Israel.' If the honorable Senator is referring to the number of UN Security Council or General Assembly resolutions passed since the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948, either condemning an atrocity committed against Arabs and Palestinians, or demanding Israeli compliance with international law, I have to admit, the UN has spent a great deal of time and has wasted a lot of ink highlighting these matters.

    I cannot help but wonder about the source of protest voiced by Lieberman, considering that Israel, who violated more UN resolutions than any other country in the world (68 unimplemented resolutions to be exact), is the country the least punished for failing to adhere to international law. While slapping strict sanctions on some countries, or waging wars on others, the United States, a country that vows to stand for freedom, justice and democracy, has soured its own ties in the Middle East and has severely harmed its own interests for the sake of Israel's transgressions, defending its massacres, often blaming the victims and blocking the deployment of unarmed UN observers to provide the least protection possible for occupied Palestinians.

    Was Senator Lieberman really honest when he made such claims? Is Sharon, the man who openly gloats over the deaths of Palestinians, and the Israeli government that is openly entertaining the expulsion of the Palestinian people no threat to its neighbors?

    But again, why should I even raise such an issue as if I indeed held any expectations of the pro-Israeli Senator? On May 2, 2002, as the bodies of scores of Palestinians killed by the Israeli army in the West Bank were decomposing in the streets of Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah and elsewhere, Lieberman rushed to the Senate, co-authoring a resolution (S. Res. 247). The urgent resolution didn't call on Israel to allow the Red Cross to collect the Palestinian corpses or to allow water supplies to reach Jenin or Nablus. Instead, it equated the US fight against terrorism with Israel's ruthless attacks on heavily populated Palestinian centers. The resolution passed quickly, yet Lieberman's fight for Israel is yet to fade. He continues to blame the victim, to fight for "security" for the occupier, he wants to attack Iraq and he blames the UN for being too harsh on Israel.

    True, Lieberman's actions are no surprise. They are very much in tune with his political philosophy. After all, it was no coincidence that he was the top recipient of pro-Israeli PAC contributions during the 2000 election cycle. I only wish, however, that Lieberman didn't tell journalists in Israel that his visit was aimed at fostering peace and reviving the stalled peace process between Israel and the Palestinian leadership. Lieberman defended Israel, blamed Palestinians and called for war on Iraq. Such an agenda can hardly be argued to be that of a peacemaker, although one can hardly deny that according to today's standards of American foreign policy, the Senator's Middle East tour was a "great success." Indeed.

    Comment


    • #3
      I can summarize the reason why Al Gore lost the last election in one word: Lieberman! Got it?

      Comment


      • #4
        I'd bet anything that it's an Arab posting all this anti-Israeli stuff on this forum. Look Muslim, we don't want you in our country. It's Christianity versus Islam. Truth against falseness. Get it.

        Comment


        • #5
          You maybe American but of Jewish roots. Get it, AIPAC?

          Comment


          • #6
            it's true!
            American Jews are only loyal to Isreal. If you don't understand this then you are either naive or do not understand history.

            Jews make worst USC.

            Comment


            • #7
              "Except for Jordan and Egypt, no Arab nation has a peace treaty with Israel. They've had 54 years to get over it. They choose not to. OK, they can squat around the camel-**** fire and grumble about it, or they can put their bottoms in the air five times a day and pray for deliverance; that's their business. ... And I don't give a damn if Israel kills a few in collateral damage while defending itself. So be it."

              Comment


              • #8
                What would Muhammad drive? I'll tell you if you ask.

                Comment

                Working...
                X