Lies, Damned Lies & Israel

Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu, in a joint press conference with President Obama, said today that Israel "cannot go back" to the 1967 borders with its neighbors in its negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. He cited over 300,000 Israeli settlers in disputed territory as the reason.

What he did not say was that this was Israel's plan all along. While pretending to negotiate in good faith with the Palestinians, Israel was building settlements in lands claimed by the Palestinian Authority. A LOT of settlements.

Angry Palestinians would send rocket and mortar fire into these settlements as a means of expressing their pent-up rage at Israel. Israel would counter by shutting down the West Bank and Gaza, rolling in tanks and delivering harsh "justice" while shouting to the world that the PA could not be trusted because it could not control its own people. While the world was focused on the plight of the peoples in the West Bank and Gaza, Israel was quietly approving new settlements, seemingly on a daily basis.

Benjamin Netanyahu would smile and shake hands with US Presidents and talk of peace with the Palestinians while expanding Israel's territory by shoving the Palestinians off of their lands. Now, he claims that he "cannot go back" because there are just too many settlers and too much of an investment made.

Someone PLEASE tell me why we continue to support Israel. They've been lying to us for DECADES. It's obvious by their actions that Israel is not interested in peace with the Palestinians or a Palestinian state, despite all of the lip-service they give the ideas.

Here's what President Obama (or ANY US President, for that matter) should do: cut off ALL funding to Israel. Stop ALL trade with Israel. Deliver the message: Make peace with the Palestinians RIGHT NOW, or you're on your own.

Will the President do this? Of course not. It's political suicide. But this kind of tough love is exactly what Israel needs so we can put this Middle East  "problem" to bed once and for all.

A Rebuttal To "The Osama Bin Laden Exception"

AP Photo

In an opinion piece in Salon.com entitled "The Osama Bin Laden Exception," columnist Glenn Greenwald argues that the US was wrong to kill Osama Bin Laden. He says that not only was it wrong, it was illegal.

In Greenwald's piece of May 9th, and in his subsequent appearance on NPR's "Talk Of The Nation," he says that US and international law prohibits the killing of Osama Bin Laden, and that he should have been brought to trial instead. His argument is that under international treaties and precedent, Bin Laden should have been given a trial and the US should have presented evidence of his guilt before passing sentence. As an example, he cites the war crimes trials of World War II, and the fact that we still have Khalid Sheikh Muhammad locked away in Guantanamo Bay - ostensibly awaiting trial.

Greenwald says that we are going against our own principles and our own sense of fairness and justice by executing Bin Laden without a fair trial in order to satisfy a thirst for revenge. He says that we would not feel the same if the situations were reversed; that is - we would not tolerate a foreign military operation on US soil designed to kill the President as a form of revenge for the deaths of thousands of people killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He says that President Obama went against his own words by carrying out a military operation without notifying Pakistan first and giving them the opportunity to turn over Bin Laden.

Finally, Greenwald says that by taking this action, the US is setting a precedent: that we say that we are a nation of laws, but we will ignore those laws when it suits us. What's to stop us from assassinating ANYONE we deem a threat?

And technically, legally. . . he's right. But here's why he's wrong:

1. Assassinating a foreign head of state has been illegal since 1976, and the US has not assassinated any foreign heads of state since 1973
2. We did not assassinate a Pakistani citizen on Pakistani soil - we assassinated a known and wanted terrorist and fugitive, officially wanted by both the United States and Pakistan
3. A trial would have given Bin Laden and Al Quaeda the very publicity and notoriety they are looking for - giving them the chance to spread more of their message of hate and terror to more people
4. It would have legitimized Bin Laden and Al Quaeda
5. Executing Bin Laden and burying him at sea prevents believers from visiting his gravesite and enshrining him as a martyr

The war crimes trials in The Hague were prosecuting individuals who were part of a government sponsored war. Those trials were designed to show the world just how evil the Nazi regime was, and to bring to light the war crimes and atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis. Additionally, those people on trial were for the most part official representatives of their government.

Anyone on the planet with a radio, television or newspaper could see for themselves the terror, destruction and murder brought forth by Bin Laden and Al Quaeda. Not only in the United States, but around the world. Al Quaeda claimed responsibility for their actions, boasted of the murder of civilians and encouraged others to do the same. They have convicted themselves by their own words and deeds.

Do our actions set a precedent? Do they "send a message?" Yes, they do: We ARE a nation of laws. We will defend your right to believe what you want to believe and say what you want to say - but don't fuck with us or our allies or we'll hunt you down, pop two rounds of ammunition into your head and dump your sorry ass into the sea. It's basically the same message we've been sending out to the world since day 1 - only more up-to-date.