#gaza undet attack | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

theculturedmarxist · 5 years

Link

You’re not supposed to utter these words, but what the heck: Osama bin Laden had a point. No, his grievances, as well as those of his followers and sympathizers, didn’t excuse the mass murder of 9/11—not by a long shot. After all, I am a native New Yorker whose family and neighborhood were directly touched by the horror of those inexcusable attacks. Still, more than 17 years after the attacks on the Pentagon and twin towers, it’s worth reflecting on bin Laden’s motives and discussing the stark fact that the United States government has made no moves to address his gripes.

Now is as good a time as any. The U.S. military remains mired in wars across the Greater Middle East that have now entered their 18th year. The cost: $5.9 trillion, 7,000 dead American soldiers, at least 480,000 locals killed and 21 million refugees created. The outcome: more instability, more violence, more global terror attacks and a U.S. reputation ruined for at least a generation in the Islamic world.

Need proof? Consider the regular polling that indicates that the U.S. is considered the greatest threat to world peace. Not China, Russia, Iran or even North Korea. The United States of America.

Why, exactly, is the U.S. so unpopular, from West Africa to South Asia? This can be explained in part by the mere presence—sustained, at that—of U.S. troops in the region. As a historian, I can assure you that folks don’t usually take well to being occupied. Nevertheless, it’s more than that. And here’s the rub: Washington, unwilling to even consider the grievances bin Laden and his acolytes clearly communicated, has instead doubled down on militarism in the region—thereby turning al-Qaida’s fringe complaints into a mainstream sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world.

Let’s review the three core grievances in bin Laden’s 1996 fatwa—essentially a declaration of war—against the U.S., and then look over Washington’s contemporary policies on the issues:

Bin Laden objected to the presence of U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia specifically and across the region more generally, due to their proximity to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Furthermore, bin Laden criticized the U.S. backing of Saudi Arabia’s despotic royal regime.

But rather than pull its troops “offshore,” the U.S. military has expanded its empire of bases, both in the Mideast and throughout the world. Despite the slaughter in Yemen and the murder of a Washington Post journalist, Washington still inflexibly backs the Saudi monarchy. The U.S. has even negotiated record arms contracts with the kingdom, to the tune of $110 billion. Clearly, Washington has only doubled down on this front.

The al-Qaida chief lamented the starvation blockade that the West—led by Washington—imposed on Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War. Make no mistake: Saddam was no friend of bin Laden—in fact, they were mortal enemies. But the well-reported deaths of some 500,000 Iraqi children, victims of the sanctions during that period, are what motivated bin Laden’s concern. The blockade was so hard and its civilian toll so gruesome that the United Nations aid chief, Denis Halliday, resigned in protest in 1998. Optically, the U.S. government response came across as both coarse and callous. When Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked in a “60 Minutes” interview in 1996 whether the price of a half-million dead children was worth the benefits of the sanctions, she cold-heartedly replied, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price—we think the price is worth it.”

Today, in addition to the unwarranted 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, which caused at least another 200,000 civilian casualties, the U.S. is complicit in a new blockade, this one imposed by Washington’s Saudi allies in Yemen. Recent reports indicate that some 85,000 Yemeni children have already starved to death in the 3–year-old war on the poorest Arab country. Undeterred, the U.S. continues to provide munitions, intelligence and in-flight refueling to the Saudi military. This veritable war crime has galvanized an increasing anti-American regional public just as intensely as the 1990’s sanctions on Iraq once did.

Bin Laden, like many global Muslims, felt sympathy for the generations-long plight of the occupied Palestinians and abhorred America’s one-sided support for Israel’s military and governing apparatus. The U.S. has been almost alone in its willingness to flout international law, U.N. resolutions and a basic sense of humanity in its backing of Israel since 1948.

Here again, nothing has changed. Washington has simply doubled down. Israel remains the principal recipient of U.S. military aid, with almost no strings attached. U.S. media and Washington policymakers rarely mention the slaughter of mostly unarmed Palestinian demonstrators protesting along the Gaza fence line in the past eight months. The results have been striking: 5,800 wounded and at least 180 killed since March. American mainstream media may not take much note of this, but guess who does? A couple of million Muslim citizens worldwide. In fact, the ongoing protests kicked off partly in response to President Trump’s near unilateral decision to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a move that essentially announced that in American eyes, the Holy City belongs to the Jews alone.

The reasons behind American intransigence and obtuseness in Mideast affairs should come as no surprise. The U.S. is a nation built on a millenarian, exceptionalist ideology and has long been driven by a mission to spread its message across the globe. A populace—and government—infused with these ideas is unlikely to demonstrate the humility to take a proverbial look in the mirror and admit fault. This became especially unlikely in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when passions reached a fever pitch and chauvinistic nationalism became the name of the game. Even then, however, credible voices questioned America’s rush to war, including scholars such as Noam Chomsky and Robert Fisk, and even comedians like Bill Maher.

Seventeen years into the nation’s longest war, there are plenty of crucial reasons to review bin Laden’s grievances, consider his arguments and show the strength of character to acquiesce on certain points. This is sobriety, not surrender. After all, self-awareness is a sign of strength and maturity in nations, as well as in individuals.

After years of counterproductive U.S. policies and Mideast interventions, the nation is left with a stark choice: admit error and alter policy, or wage an indefinite worldwide war on a significant portion of the Islamic population. The former option would lessen violence and ultimately lead to a safer homeland, but it would require confronting an uncomfortable truth that most Americans simply can’t face: Bin Laden was a monster, but that doesn’t mean he was wrong on all fronts.

#terrorism #truthdig #iraq #war on terror #middle east #politics #op ed

13 notes · View notes

israel-jewish-news · 6 years

Text

Arab MKs Kicked Out of Plenum for Protesting Pence

New Post has been published on http://hamodia.com/2018/01/22/arab-mks-kicked-plenum-protesting-pence/

Arab MKs Kicked Out of Plenum for Protesting Pence

Ushers eject a member of the Joint Arab List after a protest at the start of U.S. Vice President Mike Pence’s address to the Knesset, Monday. (Reuters/Ariel Schalit/Pool)

Undeterred by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s admonition against conduct that would “disgrace” the country during Vice President Mike Pence’s visit, Arab MKs had to be hustled out of the Knesset plenum on Monday after waving signs of protest as he began to speak.

Joint (Arab) List members held up signs saying “Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine,” in both English and Arabic, though the latter read “east Yerushalayim.”

A robust round of applause from other MKs partly drowned out the ruckus, which involved some pushing and shoving as the Knesset ushers escorted the protestors out of the hall. The disturbance was over in less than a minute.

The Arab MKs were treated to more than “applause” from their colleagues. Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman condemned the outburst in a tweet saying that the Joint List “proved once again that they are representatives of terrorist organizations in the Knesset.”

Likud MK Oren Hazan later confronted one of them outside the plenum and called him and his fellow faction MKs “terrorists,” and interrupted their interview with reporters.

Joint List member Jamal Zahalka accused the ushers of using unnecessary force.

“The ushers attacked them brutally, pushed them and dragged them even though they were on their way out without resistance. Our expulsion was done in a collective manner without reading the names of the lawmakers that should be removed, contrary to Knesset regulations,” he said.

The Joint List has supported the Palestinian Authority’s position that President Donald Trump’s declaration that Yerushalayim is Israel’s capital and the U.S. will move its embassy there disqualifies Washington from being the leading Mideast peacemaker.

Meanwhile, PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah party called for a general strike across “all Palestinian sectors” to protest U.S. policy on Pence’s second day in the country on Tuesday.

A separate strike in Gaza was called on Monday, in part to protest against the Americans.

Fatah Central Committee member Jamal Moheisen announced over the PA’s official radio newscast “a comprehensive strike in all sectors and institutions, except the ministries of health and education, to condemn the latest decision by President Donald Trump on Yerushalayim.”

#Arab #Knesset #Protest

1 note · View note

topworldhistory · 5 years

Link

The 1978 Camp David Accords secured a lasting peace between two longtime enemies in the Middle East.

Israel and Egypt did not make good neighbors. In the three decades following modern Israel’s founding in 1948, the two countries waged four major wars against one another, plus a so-called War of Attrition in which they traded artillery fire along the Suez Canal.

Glimmers of hope began to appear, however, around the time Jimmy Carter took office in 1977. From day one of his presidency, Carter showed great interest in the conflict, spending much time and political capital cajoling Egypt’s and Israel’s leaders toward what he believed would be a mutually beneficial deal.

By the summer of 1978, with peace tantalizingly close, negotiations stalled. To break the impasse, Carter invited Egypt’s President Anwar el-Sadat and Israel’s Prime Minister Menachem Begin to a summit at Camp David, sequestering them for nearly two weeks as the terms of a peace agreement were painstakingly hammered out.

Since then, Israel and Egypt have not once come to blows, even as tensions between them remain high.

Israel and Egypt Head to the Negotiating Table

Prime Minister Menachem Begin meeting with Egyptian president Anwar al Sadat at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, during Sadat's visit to Israel on November 19, 1977.

As president, the Georgia-born Carter initially tried to incorporate all the warring Middle Eastern parties in negotiations, including Jordan, Syria and the Palestinians. He likewise wanted to bring in the Soviet Union.

“For Carter a comprehensive peace agreement was not just the right thing to do, but he believed it would improve U.S.-Soviet relations and strengthen the U.S. position in the Arab world,” says Craig Daigle, an associate professor of history at the City College of New York, who is currently writing a book entitled Camp David and the Remaking of the Middle East.

It soon became clear, however, that Egypt and Israel preferred dealing solely with each other, and Carter adjusted his expectations accordingly. “One of Carter’s achievements is that he was smart enough…and agile enough to support what Sadat and Begin were doing in essentially a bilateral process,” Daniel C. Kurtzer, a professor of Middle East policy studies at Princeton University and a former U.S. ambassador to both Egypt and Israel, tells HISTORY.

In what’s been called a “psychological breakthrough,” Sadat became the first Arab leader to visit Israel in November 1977, touring Jerusalem and addressing Israel’s parliament. “You want to live with us in this part of the world,” Sadat declared. “In all sincerity, I tell you, we welcome you among us, with full security and safety.”

Begin reciprocated by flying to Ismailia, Egypt, where peace talks got underway. Their historic enmity notwithstanding, the two countries actually faced similar national security challenges. “[They] had a shared interest in fighting the rise of Islamic radicalism,” Daigle points out, plus “they both wanted to prevent Soviet intervention in the region, and they both sought U.S. weapons and financial assistance.”

Both Sadat and Begin also felt themselves surrounded by enemies. In Begin’s case, not one of the surrounding Arab countries even recognized Israel’s existence. Sadat, on the other hand, was coping with attempts by Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi to topple him from power. Moreover, Daigle explains, Sadat “feared that the Ethiopian Revolution would spill into neighboring Sudan, which could bring a hostile government to power there and threaten the supply of Nile River water, the lifeblood of the Egyptian economy.”

The Idea for a Summit Forms

Despite high hopes triggered by Sadat’s visit, a negotiating breakthrough proved elusive. “The Israeli approach was very legalistic and focused on details,” Kurtzer says, “while the Egyptian approach was focused on the big picture.”

Complicating matters was a devastating terrorist attack along Israel’s Coastal Highway, followed by a bloody Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon, a stronghold for Palestinian militants.

As frustrations mounted, Carter, who stayed involved in negotiations every step of the way, looked to stop the talks from collapsing. Taking the advice of his wife, Rosalynn, he eventually settled on inviting Sadat and Begin to Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland, believing the bucolic setting might soften the acrimony on all sides.

This strategy was hardly risk free. Carter’s popularity was suffering from rising inflation, unemployment and energy prices, and his advisers worried that a failure at Camp David would make him look weak. Even his vice president, Walter Mondale, warned against it, telling him, “If you fail we’re done. We will sap our stature as national leaders.”

The Camp David Accords

Israeli Prime Minister Menahem Begin with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and President Jimmy Carter during their peace talks on September 6, 1978 at the presidential retreat of Camp David in Maryland.

Undeterred, Carter pushed ahead, scheduling the Camp David summit for September 5, 1978. From the very beginning, Sadat and Begin clashed, wasting no opportunity to dredge up past grievances and showcasing their very different personalities. “After just a couple of days,” Kurtzer says, “Sadat and Begin basically didn’t want to talk to each other anymore.”

Begin, whose conservative Likud Party historically opposed trading land for peace, was reportedly reluctant to even use the word “Palestinian,” and he insisted on calling the West Bank by its biblical names: Judea and Samaria. With tempers flaring, the summit nearly collapsed on several occasions.

Carter realized that the two leaders would never come to terms on their own and that he needed to take on a more active role. In addition to drawing up a U.S. peace proposal, which would undergo many draft revisions, he threatened to withdraw U.S. aid and friendship, which both countries desperately needed.

At one point, Carter took Sadat and Begin to the site of the Battle of Gettysburg, an implicit warning about what could happen should negotiations fail. Mostly, though, he began meeting with the Israeli and Egyptian teams separately. Taking his own copious notes, he would rush back and forth between the two camps, often negotiating far into the night.

Carter also employed a strategy of leaving the two leaders out of it as much as possible, preferring instead to deal with certain advisers and only coming to Begin and Sadat for final approval.

For 13 days, far longer than he had expected the summit to last, Carter put aside his other presidential duties to work on Middle Eastern peace. His efforts came to fruition on September 17, when he, Sadat and Begin signed two framework agreements at the White House.

One called for Israel to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula, which it had conquered from Egypt in the 1967 Six-Day War, in exchange for the establishment of full diplomatic relations, whereas the other, more vaguely worded document, called for a “self-governing” Palestinian authority in the West Bank and Gaza, along with recognition of “the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.”

A Full Peace Proves Elusive

Here's How the Camp David Accords Impacted the Middle East (TV-PG; 3:59)

Though met with great fanfare—Sadat and Begin shared the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize, and Carter would get his own Nobel Prize years later—the Camp David Accords did not bring an immediate end to hostilities. Perhaps not surprisingly, subsequent negotiations between Israel and Egypt proved difficult, prompting Carter to visit both countries in March 1979 to tackle remaining differences. (It would, for example, take years of international arbitration to resolve a boundary dispute.)

Finally, on March 26, 1979, Egypt and Israel signed an official peace treaty. “Let history record that deep and ancient antagonism can be settled without bloodshed and without staggering waste of precious lives,” Carter said at the time.

The treaty has held ever since and includes provisions that the United States provide both countries with billions of dollars in military and economic aid. In his book, Thirteen Days in September: The Dramatic Story of the Struggle for Peace, author Lawrence Wright credits Carter’s “unswerving commitment” to resolving the conflict. “Egypt and Israel simply could not make peace without the presence of a trusted third party,” Wright states.

As Wright notes, though, unresolved issues abound, particularly regarding the Palestinians, who did not participate in the Camp David summit. “While Carter had good intentions in wanting to help the Palestinians, his policies and support for the Camp David agreements actually set them back quite a bit,” Daigle says, pointing out that, among other things, he never backed the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

In 1980, Carter was crushed in his bid for re-election. Begin, meanwhile, refused to dismantle Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza—as he had reluctantly done in the Sinai—and, in fact, promoted their construction, thereby complicating future dealings with the Palestinians. For his part, Sadat was ostracized by much of the Arab world for reaching out to Israel and was assassinated in 1981 by Islamic militants.

Although the peace these three leaders forged at Camp David was “partial and incomplete,” Wright writes, it “nonetheless stands as one of the great diplomatic triumphs of the 20th century.”

from Stories - HISTORY https://ift.tt/32B9uH3 October 21, 2019 at 10:55PM

#Worldhistory

0 notes

newstfionline · 5 years

Text

Headlines

Philip Morris Suspends Social Media Campaign After Reuters Exposes Young ‘Influencers’ (Reuters) Cigarette maker Philip Morris International Inc has suspended a global social media marketing campaign in response to Reuters inquiries into the company’s use of young online personalities to sell its new “heated tobacco” device, including a 21-year-old woman in Russia.

Torrential rain in Houston strands cars and leaves thousands without power (Washington Post) In a week that has already seen Houston and surrounding areas in Southeast Texas face some of the most severe rainfall since Hurricane Harvey, heavy storms again pounded the city late Thursday, leaving at least three bayous flowing over the top of their banks, nearly 90,000 residents without power and dozens reportedly trapped for a time in floodwater on Interstate 10. The Thursday night storm continues a week of flooding in a city where the fallout from the historic 2017 hurricane is still being felt.

Thousands of Mothers of Disappeared March Across Mexico (AP) Thousands of mothers of disappeared Mexicans marched in cities across the country to mark Mexico’s Mother’s Day and demand authorities find their children--or at least their bodies.

Cuba to Ration More Products Due to Economic Crisis, U.S. Sanctions (Reuters) Communist-run Cuba said on Friday it would control more the sales of certain foodstuff and hygiene products, including adding some back to the ration card, due to shortages that it blamed partly on the tightening of the U.S. trade embargo.

Venezuela Opens Sea, Land Access With Aruba, Brazil (AP) The Venezuelan government is seeking to ease the country’s isolation, reopening borders with Aruba and Brazil after shutting off sea and land access in February to block the opposition from delivering humanitarian aid.

Argentina Mafia Members Arrested After Congress Shooting (Reuters) Argentine authorities have arrested members of mafia gang after a rare gun attack outside Congress in Buenos Aires left one official dead and a senior lawmaker fighting for his life.

Take Two Bike Rides and Call Me in the Morning: Cycling as Doctor’s Orders (NYT) Doctors in Wales can now prescribe free bike rides to encourage people to exercise under a pilot program, the first in Britain.

Eyeing Iran, U.S. Sending More Patriot Missiles to Middle East (Reuters) Acting U.S. Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan has approved a new deployment of Patriot missiles to the Middle East, a U.S. official told Reuters on Friday, in the latest U.S. response to what Washington sees as a growing threat from Iran.

Trump’s Iran Escalation Poses a Threat for Germany (Der Spiegel) The U.S. under Donald Trump is exacerbating tensions with Iran, leading many to fear war may be just around the corner. Any military conflict would have dire consequences for Europe, but the Americans remain undeterred. Jürgen Tritten, a veteran member of the German parliament with the Green Party who is also a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said he sees a “huge danger of escalation” in the region. “The U.S. appears to be looking for a pretext to escalate the conflict with Iran,” he argued. “The claim that Iran is planning an attack against U.S. troops in Iraq smacks of a Tonkin incident,” he added, referring to a minor confrontation that became the pretext under which the U.S. intensified its role in the Vietnam War.

Prospects for trade deal darken as China looks for a way to save face (Washington Post) China is digging in for a new battle in its trade war with the United States, declaring Friday that it has no choice but to “take necessary countermeasures” against increased tariffs on its goods. The declaration was posted on the Chinese Commerce Ministry’s website at 12:03 p.m. Beijing time--exactly two minutes after the United States raised tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods to 25 percent from 10 percent, as President Trump had threatened.

Hong Kong Legislators Brawl Over Contentious Extradition Law (Reuters) Scuffles broke out in Hong Kong’s legislature on Saturday between pro-democracy lawmakers and those loyal to Beijing over an extradition law that will extend Beijing’s powers over the financial hub.

Israeli Troops Kill Palestinian at Gaza Border Protest--Medics (Reuters) Israeli forces shot and killed a Palestinian on Friday during weekly protests along the border with Israel, Gaza health officials said.

Algerians March for 12th Week Seeking Broad Political Change (AP) Protesters filled the streets of the Algerian capital and other cities on Friday for the 12th consecutive week, and the country’s army chief was the prime target of their opposition.

Dozens Dead as Migrant Boat Capsizes Off Tunisia (NYT) At least 50 people were believed drowned off the coast of Tunisia after their boat--believed to be headed from Libya to Italy--capsized.

French special forces rescue four hostages in West Africa, including an American (Washington Post) French forces have freed four hostages--including an American citizen--in the West African nation of Burkina Faso, where Islamist violence is surging, the French government said Friday. The military raid resulted in the deaths of two French soldiers late Thursday during a confrontation in the country’s north. That stretch of largely ungoverned land has become a hotbed of extremism in recent years as insurgents spilled over the border from Mali.

Nigeria Says Ex-President and His Oil Minister Took Bribes (Reuters) The Nigerian government has accused former President Goodluck Jonathan and his then oil minister of accepting bribes and breaking the country’s laws to broker a $1.3 billion oil deal eight years ago, a London court filing shows.

#headlines

0 notes

majesticmojo-blog · 7 years

Text

Israeli Position towards increasing settlements in West Bank against UN resolution mandates to cease

Israel Palestine Conflict:

Two groups of people that claim the same land

Ottoman Rule for centuries that was changing in new ways. In the region people of the area were defining a national heritage calling themselves Palestinians.

British mandate for Palestine, tension for Jews and Arabs grew by 1930’s. Militia formed to fight the British Rule.

After Holocaust, there was a global initiative galvanized by atrocity to give Jewish people their own state. They say their history and need for safety in homeland justified it and many Jews ad already moved there.

In 1947, United Nations Approved a plan that would divide the land between Palestine and Israel which eventually became the West Bank and region known as Gaza all part of the “Green Line”. City of Jerusalem was to be a special international city open to both.

Independence for Jews was stated but Arabs saw the UN plan as just most European colonialism and began a war with Israel. The new state of Israel won this war and took on even more land claiming the whole region with the victory. They also expelled huge number of Palestinians from their homes resulting in 7 million refugees.

1967, Israel and neighbouring Arab states fought another war and were then occupying territories including Palestinian territories with military even in West Bank and Gaza.

Basically a big back and fourth for land in this region. But along this timeline since Israeli occupation something has been happening. Basically, Israeli “settlers” have been going into West Bank making it much more difficult for Palestinians to have an independent state.

A violent extremist group in 1990’s emerged known as Hamas.

Oslo accords, potentially first big step for Israel but extremism has kept a permanent conflict going and negotiations meant to hammer out peaceful options have been thwarted.

Two infanata’s later, the Israeli politics shifts hard-right. Palestinians feel like they are under an ever-growing occupation by Israel.

Israel has put Gaza under a suffocating barricade and blockage.

The occupation keeps things at bay to a degree, but their occupation is not a long-term solution and the settlements go against the Geneva convention and many other international resolutions set forward including Oslo accords under Clinton.

Undeterred by a resounding 14-0 vote in the U.N. voting to condemn Israeli settlements, Netanyahu came out saying they would continue to build new settlements in East Jerusalem as well as new regions amidst West Bank.

Trump’s position is to further support this against the world general consensus that likely has Israels best interests at heart, for these settlements are increasing instability in the region, increased terror attacks, perhaps a third Infanata. This is quite dangerous overall for the region though hope is seriously waning for Palestinians and Arab support for them in the region is waning. Egypt and Jordan increasingly more peaceful relationship with Israel. Their liberal values seem to supercede very much less progressive Arab belief systems and undemocratic spheres of influence which shroud the potential for Palestinians to be awarded very much respect in the ongoing conflict especially from U.S., a long-time military supporter and ally of Israel.

0 notes