Skip to main content

Restraint? + An Arab Revolution knocking at the door

"It was a Sunday, bloody Sunday - with no uplifting U2 anthem to "celebrate" it. In Palestine, Syria and Lebanon, tens of thousands of Palestinians marched to the borders with Israel to mark the anniversary of the 1948 Nakba - the displacement that accompanied the creation of Israel.

The Israeli response, with "maximum restraint": killing 10 people in Lebanon, eight in Syria, two in Gaza and one in the West Bank, and injuring over 200. The Anglo-French-American consortium waging war on Libya because Colonel Muammar Gaddafi allegedly kills his own people was thunderously mute."

So begins a feisty and blunt piece "Sunday, Bloody Sunday" by Pepe Escobar in the OnLine Asia Times.

"Forget about the UN Security Council - so eager to send the North Atlantic Treaty Organization on an attacking rampage on the side of a dodgy bunch of Libyan "rebels", effectively taking sides on a civil war - even considering dealing with Israel as it treats Iran, slapping it with economic sanctions until it starts complying with international law.

Forget about the Obama administration supporting the UN Security Council into giving Palestine a formal seat as a nation-state at the UN; over 100 nations, including, recently, Brazil, Argentina and Norway, already recognize the legitimacy of Palestine. If that would ever happen, the Palestinian nation could sue the hell of Israel in international courts of law over the systematic theft of Palestinian territory.

Would Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama lose anything with this move? No. The powerful Israel Lobby in Washington - led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) - is already campaigning against him in 2012. Anyway, he won't do it - and on top of it will address the upcoming AIPAC annual meeting in Washington. If there is a Washington consensus, it's its complicity in the Israeli regime."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more