Why does Obama get a prize whilst Bush gets shoes

Today, when I came home from our nonviolent demonstration in Bil'in, after the soldiers shot tear gas and after seeing the violence of the Israeli soldiers, I heard that President Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize. When I heard this from the media I started to go crazy. I asked myself why. The Americans are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Palestine is still occupied. In the recent news I saw that the Israeli soldiers closed Jerusalem, and I heard that many people were injured. We haven't seen anything changed. Why didn't the committee give the prize to Bush? I remember nine years ago Bush had a good speech about the establishment of a Palestinian state in the year of 2005. We saw after the speech that Sharon invaded Al Aqsa mosque, and the American army invaded Iraq. Why didn't you give the prize to this man at that time, and he got shoes instead? This is injustice!

I am so sorry Mr. Bush. You worked very hard, eight years with killing children, starting wars and supporting the occupation, and they gave the prize to another man.

I ask you our friends in the Nobel Committee, why  didn't you choose quality? I think your prize makes the people more violent. Do you think that Obama can make peace, and why didn't you wait until he actually made the peace? Maybe he will invade another country. Sorry, but we are still under occupation and it makes us very crazy because we see every day and night the suffering of our children, and it's killing us. We hear in the speeches that the president talks about peace, but nothing has changed. To deserve a Nobel prize you need to work, not talk. We need the work to be done now, not tomorrow. We need our land now, not tomorrow.
http://www.bilin-ffj.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=201&Itemid=1

Thank you for you continued support,

Iyad Burnat- Head of Popular Commitee in Bilin
co-founder  of Friends of Freedom and Justice - Bilin

STEVEN J. ROSEN vs AIPAC: The WITNESS LIST

On March 2, 2009 Steven J. Rosen filed a civil lawsuit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia accusing his former employer, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, its directors, and an outside public relations firm of libel and slander. Rosen, AIPAC's former foreign policy chief, is seeking damages of $5 million from AIPAC and punitive damages of $500,000 each from former board members.  Rosen's lawsuit seeks $21 million in total damages for statements he claims AIPAC made that were "knowingly false and defamatory and issued in reckless disregard for the harm to Mr. Rosen."  The civil suit is related to the 2005 criminal indictment of AIPAC officials Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman along with Department of Defense employee Colonel Lawrence Franklin under the Espionage Act.

 

A who's who of AIPAC officials and Neo-con operators  . . .

PLAINTIFF STEVEN J. ROSEN'S WITNESS LIST Plaintiff Steven 1. Rosen, through counsel, and pursuant to this Court's Order submits the following list of witnesses who may be called to testify at trial:
1. Plaintiff Steven 1. Rosen
2. Howard Kohr
3. Melvin Dow
4. Bernice Manocherian
5. Howard Friedman
6. Lawrence Weinberg
7. Robert Asher
8. Edward Levy, Jr.
9. Lionel Kaplan
10. Timothy Wuliger
11. Amy Rothschild Friedkin
12. Patrick Dorton
13. Richard Fishman
14. Phillip Friedman
15. Lawrence Franklin
16. Keith Weissman
17. Nathan Lewin
18. Abbe Lowell
19. Rene Rothstein
20. Marvin Feuer
21. Douglas Bloomfield
22. Morris Amitay
23. Thomas Dine
24. Neal Sher
25. Elliott Abrams
26. John Bolton
27. Martin Indyk
28. Robert Satloff
29. Newton Becker
30. David Satterfield
31. Kenneth Pollack
32. Laura Lester
33. John N. Nassikas
34. Annette Franzen
36. Morris Edeson
37. Ester Kurz
38. Malcolm Hoenlein
39. Abraham Foxman
40. Charles Perkins
41. Raphael Danziger
42. Alyza Lewin
43. Barbara Schubert
44. Jane Flax
45. Alan Platt
46. Paul Rovinsky
47. Barry Schochet
48. Robert Dean

In addition, plaintiff may also call to testify at trial employees or representatives of AIPAC, present or former, not yet identified as having information related to this case.

 

Take Action: Replant Olive Trees in Palestine

Take Action: Replant Olive Trees in Palestine

October 6th, 2009


This month, Palestinian farmers in the Israeli-occupied West Bank will brave Israeli army checkpoints and curfews, apartheid fences and walls, and likely attacks by Israeli settlers simply to harvest their olives trees.

For centuries, these olive trees have formed the backbone of Palestinian agriculture. Yet as this 9-minute documentary below shows, as part of its illegal military occupation, Israel has systematically uprooted these Palestinian olive trees by the thousands to clear land for illegal Israeli settlements, apartheid fences and walls, and to dispossess Palestinian farmers of their lands and livelihoods.

 

You can help Palestinian farmers remain steadfast on their land and non-violently resist Israeli occupation by donating money to replant an olive tree. The US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation is proud to partner with Zatoun and its Trees for Life program to replant olive trees in Palestine.

 

For every $25 tax-deductible contribution you make to support the work of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, we will replant one olive tree in Palestine. Donate $100 and we will replant five trees.  Make your tax-deductible contribution today.

 

Peace an illusion, says Israel FM

Peace an illusion, says Israel FM

Israel's foreign minister has said there is no chance of an early solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and told people to "learn to live with it".

Avigdor Lieberman does not lead Israeli peace negotiations, but his statement casts a pall over latest US diplomatic efforts to revive negotiations.

Envoy George Mitchell is in the region, spearheading Obama administration efforts to re-launch negotiations.

Talks are stalled over the issue of Jewish settlements on occupied land.

Mr Mitchell is due to meet Mr Lieberman and Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak on Thursday, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas on Friday.

Reports quote US officials saying the visit was unlikely to conclude with a resumption of talks.

 

I am going to say very clearly - there are conflicts that have not been completely solved and people have learned to live with it, like Cyprus
Israeli FM Avigdor Lieberman

But the envoy said before a meeting with Israel's president: "We're going to continue with our efforts to achieve an early relaunch of negotiations... because we believe that's an essential step toward achieving the comprehensive peace."

In a radio interview, Mr Lieberman said people who think Israel and the Palestinians can reach a deal "do not understand reality and are sowing illusions".

"We have to be realistic - we will not be able to reach agreement on core and emotional subjects like Jerusalem and the right of return (of Palestinian refugees," he said.

"I am going to say very clearly - there are conflicts that have not been completely solved and people have learned to live with it, like Cyprus."

His suggestion was a long-term interim deal to ensure prosperity, security and stability and leave tough questions until later."

Policy proposal

Mr Lieberman's comments are broadly in line with a policy proposal from within the Israeli foreign ministry leaked to the Israeli press on Thursday.

The document, which the BBC has seen, says: "Creating expectations that a comprehensive solution to the conflict can be reached might lead again to disappointment and frustration that will sour our relations with the US and Europe, and cause a violent reaction among the Palestinians.

"We can reach an interim agreements between the sides without solving the core issues such as Jerusalem, right of return and borders - that is the maximum which realistically could be attainted and its very important to convince the US and Europe of this."

The Foreign Ministry said the reports about the policy proposal were "partial leaks from internal documents" and the leaks were regrettable.

It said Mr Lieberman had "requested a survey of existing policy and possible recommendations" as part of a "comprehensive discussion on Israel's foreign policy".

Stalled talks

The Obama administration has been struggling for months to pressure Israel to freeze settlement construction on occupied land, a key Palestinian demand for restarting talks.

Israel has countenanced a temporary limit on construction in the West Bank, but not in occupied East Jerusalem.

The fate of East Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees have not been the subject of the latest peace efforts.

Palestinians and Arab states say there must be a just and fair solution to these issues, while successive Israel governments have sought to keep all of Jerusalem under their control and argued that a right of return for Palestinian refugees would mean the end of the Jewish majority in Israel.

President Barack Obama called the refugees' situation "intolerable" but has not backed their right of return.

Jerusalem in recent days has been the scene of rising tensions and sporadic clashes, focused on access to the al-Aqsa mosque compound, known to Jews as the Temple Mount, a flashpoint site in the Old City.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/8296809.stm

Published: 2009/10/08 12:48:36 GMT

© BBC MMIX

It's all kosher for Kasher: Israeli ethics professor justifies massacre


"If this is how a philosopher of ethics speaks, who needs propagandists?"

Whoever said that intellectuals are keeping silent? Who claimed that academia is ensconced in an ivory tower? And who dared to think that Israel lacks a moral voice? One day, when historians take the time to examine Israel's brutal offensive in Gaza, otherwise known as "Cast Lead," they will settle a score with political leaders and officers who were responsible for committing war crimes. They will delve deep and denounce the enablers of this nation, the whitewashers and apologists, those who let the Israel Defense Forces win at any cost, even if it was the heaviest moral cost possible.

The main target on their list will be Mr. Ethics, Prof. Asa Kasher, the Israel Prize-winning philosopher and author of the IDF's Code of Conduct. Kasher glossed over every transgression during this war. He's the one responsible for that toxic "IDF spirit" - which holds that when it comes to protecting soldiers, anything goes for the IDF.

This flimsy fig leaf of a man bears as much moral responsibility as the political leaders who made the decisions and the soldiers who carried out their orders. He's the philosopher who removed the reins, the intellectual who whitewashed everything. It is thanks to him and those of his ilk that Israelis can feel so self-righteous. When the world said in near unison, "War crimes," Kasher said, "We are the most moral army in the world, no one is better than us." If this is how a philosopher of ethics speaks, who needs propagandists?
    
He wasn't always like this. He now says in every possible forum, "If it comes down to a choice between a neighbor and an IDF soldier, the preference is the soldier," and "The lives of our soldiers is of more interest to me than the dignity and well-being of the Palestinians." He has also said that there is no justification for endangering the lives of soldiers in order to prevent the killing of civilians living "next to a terrorist." But he once thought and wrote differently.

As a radical activist at the height of the first Lebanon war, Kasher, who is also one of the founders of the soldiers' refusal movement Yesh Gvul, courageously appeared at a news conference with Nathan Zach, Dan Miron and Yeshayahu Leibowitz. Kasher, who for some reason sees Leibowitz as his patron and mentor, wrote in a letter to Haaretz: "Against the backdrop of news reports on thousands of noncombatant Lebanese and Palestinians who were harmed during Israel's military operations, and given the complete justification of these instances given by the prime minister, it is every decent man's duty to express unreserved opposition to the prime minister's treatment of innocent civilians who are caught in the middle of a war he initiated."

What has changed since then? Kasher has changed. Every decent man continues to believe that unnecessary killing of civilians is a criminal act. The war in Gaza was no less cruel than the war in Lebanon. Universal ethics remain today what they were then. Only Kasher's ethics have radically changed. If only his statements hadn't been so damaging, we could ignore the bewildering change in his positions. Yet for years he has been co-opted by the defense establishment and the IDF as their rubber stamp, solely because of the profound change he underwent. Now he serves as their flack and rationalizer, the philosopher lackey.

In recent days, the United Nations' Goldstone report has been denounced as "anti-Semitic propaganda," and white phosphorus bombs have become "legitimate weapons." Why? Kasher heard from an IDF colonel that when a phosphorus bomb fell near him, nothing happened to him. And what about the 200 children who were killed? They were of "legal adult age - 15 to 18 years - and they took an active part in the war." What about the killing of Dr. Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish's daughters? He is responsible for their deaths. The bombing of hospitals? This, too, is permitted. Kasher knows that terrorists were hiding in their basements.

The IDF Spokesman's Office could not have phrased it any better. The Foreign Ministry's spin doctors could not have deceived any better. This is how Kasher has whitewashed the assassinations and resultant killing of innocent civilians. He also thought that the IDF did not do enough killing in Jenin. The army, Kasher thought, should have warned the civilians beforehand, and "whoever stayed, let the blood be on his head." This is how generals who try to justify their criminal actions speak. But an intellectual? An expert on ethics?

What is the world coming to? Listen to Kasher and look at us. This is the man who symbolizes our morality and this is how we behave. Why should we complain about Defense Minister Ehud Barak? Why should we excoriate Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi? What is so objectionable about a general who planned and a soldier who carried out the order, when above them hovers this toxic spirit that emanates directly from the halls of humanism, philosophy and ethics, and which through mere words provides cover for this awful abyss?
Fair Use Notice
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.