"The Cause of Israel is the Cause of America"

[durutti]

http://www.counterpunch.org/kerry02172004.html

My first trip to Israel made real for me all I'd believed about Israel.

I was allowed to fly an air force jet from the Ovda Airbase. It was then that Israeli insecurity about narrow borders became very real to me. In a matter of minutes, I came close to violating the airspace of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. From that moment on, I felt as Israelis do: The promise of peace must be secure before the Promised Land is secure on a thin margin of land.

Back on the ground on that first trip, I toured the country from Kibbutz Mizgav Am to Masada to the Golan. I stood in the very shelter in a kibbutz in the north where children were attacked and I looked at launching sites and impact zones for Katousha rockets. I was enthralled by Tel Aviv, moved by Jerusalem and inspired by by standing above Capernaum, looking out over the Sea of Galilee, where I read aloud the Sermon on The Mount. I met people of stunning commitment, who honestly and vigorously debated the issues as I watched and listened intently. I went as a friend by conviction; I returned a friend at the deepest personal level.

As the only true democracy in the Middle East, Israel has both the burden and the glory of a vigorous public square. We as Americans must be the truest and best kind of ally--forthright enough to say what we think--and steadfast enough to stay the course in hard passages as well as easy days.

[GabysPoppy]

1. Kerry's words are quite moving

As for the editors note:

There is a reason that a vast majority in the political arena is pro-israel, because it's the correct position for this country to take.

[Violet_Crumble]

5. About as moving as a bowel movement...

Seriously, there's nothing moving about a swag of empty rhetoric, which is all Kerry's words were. This 'the cause of Israel is the cause of America' nonsense does make it clear that if the cause of Israel is to continue to oppress and kill Palestinians, to blatantly violate human rights and to refuse the right of self-determination to the Palestinians, then that's what America's cause is too, and we're all supposed to look the other way and try to pretend that America's cause is all that is good and pure....

Oh, so if the vast majority in the political arena take a particular stance, then that means it's the correct position for the US to take? So, why was invading Iraq the correct position for the US to take? Also, I don't think anyone, political or otherwise, who supports continuing the occupation, pretending that the only victims in the conflict are Israelis, and who expresses unquestioning support of the policies of the Israeli govt is pro-Israel at all. The only thing they support is pro-violence and pro-bloodshed as far as I'm concerned...


Violet...

[LeahMira]

10. Actions speak louder...

This 'the cause of Israel is the cause of America' nonsense does make it clear that if the cause of Israel is to continue to oppress and kill Palestinians, to blatantly violate human rights....

Are you familiar with the human rights record of Jordan vis a vis the Palestinians?

No, Israel is not perfect. It is better than most though... and you do have a point. Israel's record is better than the record of the U.S.

You are also probably right in thinking that Kerry is saying what the folks want to hear. When he takes office, we will see what he does.

The only thing they support is pro-violence and pro-bloodshed as far as I'm concerned...

There's another good point. Without arms from the U.S., not very many of the wars and skirmishes going on today would have escalated to their present level. We in the U.S. talk a good game, but we export war. Seems to me that there might be something else we could be exporting.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Yep...

Are you familiar with the human rights record of Jordan vis a vis the Palestinians?

I am. And what's sad is that Jordan probably has the best record of all neigbouring states when it comes to the treatment of the Palestinians, which isn't saying much and only cememts my opinion that the Palestinians are screwed over by all concerned...

No, Israel is not perfect. It is better than most though... and you do have a point. Israel's record is better than the record of the U.S.

I don't think anyone expects Israel to be perfect. It's an unrealistic expectation to place on any state. But if the I/P conflict was resolved peacefully and we focused on Israel itself and nothing else, its human rights record would be about the same as Western democracies. But the situation in the Occupied Territories and the treatment of the Palestinians gives Israel an appalling human rights record in that regard alone. And saying that Israel's record is better than that of the US isn't saying much at all. The US has a long and glowing history of ignoring human rights of the citizens of states that it turns its ire on...


You are also probably right in thinking that Kerry is saying what the folks want to hear. When he takes office, we will see what he does.

I figure at worst he'd follow the Bush tactic and make a bit of ineffectual noise every now and again, while hoping the whole thing vanishes from the radar unless he can take claim for *Peace In The Middle East*. At best he'd not favour either side and get them to stick to any peace plan put on the table...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. Amen

It's good to have a clear front runner who is clear on the Mideast situation as well.

[sushi]

8. What does it mean?

Does "Clear on the Mideast situation" mean the US must always side with Israel because Israel never makes mistakes, or right or wrong, the US must always side with Israel because Israel is a democracy?

[LeahMira]

12. It means...

Does "Clear on the Mideast situation" mean the US must always side with Israel because Israel never makes mistakes, or right or wrong, the US must always side with Israel because Israel is a democracy?

It means that we need to be clear with the idea that some of Israel's policies are mistaken but if we are going to criticise Israel we ought to criticise with just as loud a voice those other nations in the world with far worse human rights records.

It makes me sick at heart to know that we did not invade Iraq because of Saddam Hussein's human rights violations. The fact of those violations came only as an afterthought when it was obvious that Iraq did not have the weapons of mass destruction that we were told it did have. IMO, the US should have focused on the human rights violations from the beginning and the heck with whatever weapons it might have had.

The same thing applies to North Korea and Iran. Because the US sees those nations as a threat to our security or our national interests, the US targets them for particular attention.

I don't think that the US should invade any nation because of human rights violations, but when the Arab nations bring Israel's actions to the attention of the UN, why does the US not bring UN attention to human rights violations in most of the Arab nations as well as in many other nations of the world? Is there some reason that we don't?

This article makes me wonder if we are not more interested in making money for ourselves than in human rights in other nations.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/usa/document.do?id=F7CE0B13E65E100085256DF00050B882

[Darranar]

13. That last part is a pretty accurate analysis.

[Blayde Starrfyre]

15. One problem

"It means that we need to be clear with the idea that some of Israel's policies are mistaken but if we are going to criticise Israel we ought to criticise with just as loud a voice those other nations in the world with far worse human rights records."

This is the position that most of us liberals take. The problem is that conservatives and the pro-Israel lobby have made this a virtually untenable position. Even a statement like "Palestinians killing Iraeli civilians is wrong, and Israelis killing Palestinian civilians is wrong" gets you branded an "anti-Semite." The only position these people who have "framed" the discussion to use the term that is coming into vogue on this board will accept is unequivocal praise of Israel and unequivocal condemnation of Palestinians.

As for the rest of your post, I think the idea that we should invade countries for human rights violations is unreasonable. First on the list would be China for their grotesque crimes of humanity against Tibet and we all know how that one would turn out. This is why the "Iraqi Freedom" argument is so hollow: I will buy it when we liberate the oppressed people of Tibet, Saudi Arabia, Chechnya, and Palestine.

[LeahMira]

16. So shove their labels.

This is the position that most of us liberals take. The problem is that conservatives and the pro-Israel lobby have made this a virtually untenable position.

If it makes you feel any better, the same kind of tension is part of the Jewish-American community. The AIPAC crowd isn't fond of the Jewish Peace Lobby or the Tikkun Community, and vice versa. We're all Jews though.

After attending a presentation on Israel... and how it is seen by the world, I read parts of Dershowitz' book on The Case for Israel over this weekend. I'm pretty much convinced that there is a double standard with regard to Israel in many cases. At the same time, I don't feel that Israel needs to get a pass because other nations do the same or worse, as I think he suggests. The answer, as I said, is to be vigorous in our denunciation of human rights violations wherever they occur.

That's hard to do, though, because our media doesn't report world news and while we can find info on the internet, that does take some effort and even then not everyone with whom we might speak will even know what country we're talking about, let alone care about it. Remember how so many people supposedly couldn't even locate Iraq on a map a while back?

Don't let conservatives put labels on you that you don't deserve. Anti-Semites believe (among other things) that the Jewish people have no right to a sovereign homeland of their own. There is nothing anti-Semitic about discussing the pros and cons of how Israelis govern Israel as long as you support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state among the nations of the world.

IMO, those fundamentalist Christians who support Israel only because they see Israel's fate somehow tied up with their own apocalypse beliefs are among the real anti-Semites.

[Blayde Starrfyre]

18. Yes, good points

Personally I have always thought that the fundamentalist Christians are only siding with Israel temporarily because they are more threatened by the population of 1 billion Muslims. If all the Muslims in the world disappeared today, tomorrow the Christians would have no more use for Israel and would begin fantasizing about retaking the Holy Land for Christ.

I believe you are making a point about Israel receiving harsher condemnation than other countries in the world. That may be true, but I think it is justified because a country like Cuba, which also commits crimes, no doubt, does not receive billions of dollars from the U.S. taxpayers. As long as Israel is getting so much money from us, we should be allowed to have a say in their affairs. If they want to revoke their alliance with us and give back all the money, then we can't fairly condemn them any more than we condemn China, Saudi Arabia, or any other governments which trangress international law. But if my money is going over there, I do not want it used for acts which I consider to be deplorable.

[LeahMira]

19. Not just the U.S.

As long as Israel is getting so much money from us, we should be allowed to have a say in their affairs.

I don't necessarily agree with that, but Israel is also the focus of criticism from other nations that do not send her money or other sorts of assistance.

For example, consider the United Nations acting on behalf of all the world's nations. In the past 30 years, 30% of all U.N. resolutions condemning countries' behavior were directed at Israel. 6 out of 10 General Assembly emergency sessions dealt with Israel, while 4 dealt with other nations. In 2003, the General Assembly passed 18 resolutions condemning Israel, while only four condemned any other nations of the world. China, Syria, Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Yemen, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Zimbabwe are never mentioned for condemnation.

Were I a visitor from Mars, I might conclude that Earth is generally a pretty peaceful planet except for that one pesky nation called Israel that's causing all the trouble. Fair-minded Earthlings, though, certainly know better. Don't we?

[drewb]

2. Well I'll be a monkey's uncle...

Who'd a thunk it?

:puffpiece:

[Les Claypool]

3. "Only true democracy in the Middle East?"

More empty rhetoric.

:eyes:

[sweetcee]

7. What democracy is there

in the Middle East except for Israel? And, yes, Israel IS a true democracy.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

4. Dear AC/JSC, ed.

:nopity:

[Comadreja]

9. Occupation

But Haffner knows the bitter truth, at least in retrospect: "In the back of my mind, there is a little nagging voice. Nothing can help. Whatever you say, that swastika was on your arm." The comparison that begs to be made? The dilemma of whether or not to serve in the territories, to stand at an army checkpoint in the role of the hard-hearted jailer, cruelly keeping women, children, sick and old from getting through - or saying no and being hauled off to prison.

www.haaretzdaily.com read more (14483 characters)

Quote: The War, As Told To Us
Wednesday, May, 07 2003 (submitted: May, 13 2003) By Diana Abu-Jaber

[Forkboy]

11. "The Cause of Israel is the Cause of America"

This is what scares me.

[laura888]

14. Very well said.

Are Americans really ready to go to war for Israel? This may be the result of such thinking.

[LeahMira]

17. Americans will never go to war for Israel...

... and Israel knows it.

[Comadreja]

21. Israel-- New S. Africa Scofflaw nation

"The South African apartheid regime never engaged in the sort of repression Israel is inflicting on the Palestinians. For all the evils and atrocities of apartheid, the government never sent tanks into black towns. It never used gunships, bombers, or missiles against the black towns or Bantustans. The apartheid regime used to impose sieges on black towns, but these sieges were lifted within days. Soldiers used to search homes and conduct a variety of punitive measures, but none of these can be compared with Israel's repressive actions, and its siege of entire towns and villages for months on end."
-Ronnie Kasrils, Jewish leader of the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa; currently a minister in South Africa’s government (interview with Yehia Ghanem, published in Al-Ahram, 28 March – 3 April, 2002).