Israel's piracy of the Free Gaza boat this week reminds me of past, similar actions. Here's a letter of mine the New York Times published on March 3, 1992:
To the Editor:Contrary to your report on the brouhaha in France stirred by medical aid for George Habash (news article, Jan. 31), Mr. Habash's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine was not "the first group to hijack aircraft in the late 1960's." Israel originated the practice in 1954.
On Dec. 8 of that year, five Israeli soldiers were captured in Syria, apparently retrieving eavesdropping equipment. On Dec. 12, Israeli jet fighters intercepted a Syrian civilian aircraft flying from Damascus to Egypt, claiming that the plane had violated Israeli airspace.
The following day you reported that this "development appears to have given Israel an unexpected position of strength for negotiating the release of Syria's prisoners."
Gen. Moshe Dayan was then Israeli Chief of Staff. The Israeli Prime Minister, Moshe Sharett, wrote in his diary, "It is clear that Dayan's intention . . . is to get hostages in order to obtain the release of our prisoners in Damascus."
Contrary to General Dayan's hopes, no exchange took place. Prime Minister Sharett added that the United States State Department complained that "our action was without precedent in the history of international practice."
SAM HUSSEINI
Associate, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
New York, Feb. 18, 1992
I notice this pattern quite at bit.
Forbes: "Scheiner, 71, was Obama's doctor from 1987 until he entered the White House. ... 'Obama's wonderful, but on this one I'm not sure if he's getting the right input.'"
Meanwhile, experts on finance, the death penalty, foreign policy, energy policy, etc are saying the same thing.
Colbert from Iraq has an Arab American and an Iraqi Kurd -- who are rabidly pro war. We have a totally pro-establishment president continuously and gratuitously referred to as "black" and an establishment supreme court nominee continuously referred to as "Latina". Are the limits of "diversity" in fixing actual problems clear yet? Why didn't the farcical experience with Powell and Rice make them clear?
Obama calls for dialogue with Muslim world
The next week
Colbert -- possibly the most liberal show on
US teevee
Goes to Iraq
Interviews a general, soldiers (including one gung-ho pro war Arab American)
plays clips of bill clinton, obama, g hw bush...
Will he interview an Iraqi in Iraq?
Perhaps someone who's not wild about the war.
Is that really asking too much?
We've been at war for how long?
How many Iraqis have Stewart and Colbert interviewed?
How different would things be if they interviewed
just one every month?
"We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case."
Summary: Obama calls for people to 'end the suspicion,' to 'speak the truth,' embrace democracy and adopt nonviolence. In the real world, he refuses to honestly acknowledge Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal, increasing the military budget, is escalating war in Afghanistan, is continuing close relationships with dictators, while refusing dialogue with the elected Hamas government.
A noteworthy piece I hadn't seen on U.S. stance on Israel's nukes:
JERUSALEM, May 21 (Reuters) - The U.S. administration of President Barack Obama will not force Israel to state publicly whether it has nuclear weapons, an Israeli official said on Thursday.
He said Washington would stick to a decades-old U.S. policy of "don't ask, don't tell".
Obama's bid to curb Iran's nuclear programme through diplomacy has stirred speculation that, as part of a regional disarmament regimen, Israel could be asked to come clean on its own secret capabilities.
But a senior Israeli diplomat, speaking after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held his first summit with Obama in Washington this week, said: "This has never happened, nor will it happen with this administration."
That U.S. message had been conveyed, the diplomat said, "on the various levels of our bilateral talks".
Israel is widely believed to have procured the Middle East's only nuclear weapons. It neither confirms nor denies this, under an "ambiguity" policy billed as deterring foes while avoiding the kind of public provocations that can trigger arms races.
Historians say that the Nixon administration forged a tacit policy of not pressing Israel on the matter. The official American reticence angers Iran -- which denies seeking the bomb -- as well as the Arab world. (Writing by Dan Williams; Editing by Myra MacDonald)
Obama is quoted approvingly by Thomas Friedman of the New York Times today as saying: "We're just going to keep on telling the truth until it stops working -- and nowhere is truth-telling more important than the Middle East." Obama adds, talking about other political figures in the Mideast: "Stop saying one thing behind closed doors and saying something else publicly."
There are many things wrong with this, but let's take what seems to me the most glaring:
At his first news conference, Obama was asked by long-time White House correspondent Helen Thomas: "do you know of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons?" This was an obvious reference to Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal.
Obama replied: "I don't want to speculate".
Obama professes a compulsion to tell "the truth" and urges political actors in the region to be forthright, but he takes a ridiculous shortcut on the most crucial security matter possible.
Insult to injury: Obama hasn't taken a question from Thomas since she asked him this.
Upon nominating Sotomayor, Obama highlighted the phrase engraved on the front of the United States Supreme Court building: "Equal Justice Under the Law."
But do we have anything resembling that? We have people who are being detained indefinitely and we have people -- Bush and other government officials -- who have openly declared they broke the law who Obama is avoiding prosecuting.
"Chief Justice" John Roberts has stated that "What is morally just and right -- that's not my job." Therefore, as John Roberts and other members of the Supreme Court should not have the title "Justice", as in references to "Justice Souter's Retirement".
We in fact have neither law nor justice.
I ask McCain about his Wall Street cash
He says he wishes for more
Like Obama has
Says the problem
is Fannie and Fredie
(not Citi and Fed)
I ask McCain about his Wall Street cash
He says he wishes for more
Like Obama has
Each party is the best argument
for the other
Like two near fallen buildings
each kept up
by leaning on its not-so-secret brother
"Chief Justice" John Roberts has stated that "What is morally just and right -- that's not my job." Therefore, as John Roberts and other members of the Supreme Court should not have the title "Justice", as in references to "Justice Souter's Retirement".
