lördag 24 januari 2009

Obama och Mitchell nämner inte ockupationen

Noam Chomsky intervjuad av Democracy Now igår. Kommentar till vad Obama sa:

NOAM CHOMSKY: It’s approximately the Bush position. He began by saying that Israel, like any democracy, has a right to defend itself. That’s true, but there’s a gap in the reasoning. It has a right to defend itself. It doesn’t follow that it has a right to defend itself by force. So we might agree, say, that, you know, the British army in the United States in the colonies in 1776 had a right to defend itself from the terror of George Washington’s armies, which was quite real, but it didn’t follow they had a right to defend themselves by force, because they had no right to be here. So, yes, they had a right to defend themselves, and they had a way to do it—namely, leave.

[...]
Now, that’s what Obama—if Israel—there’s no question that all of these acts are in total violation of the foundations of international humanitarian law. Israel knows it. Their own advisers have told each other—legal advisers have explained that to them back in ’67. The World Court ruled on it. So it’s all total criminality. But they want to be able to persist without any objection. And that’s the thrust of Obama’s remarks. Not a single word about US-backed Israeli crimes, settlement development, cantonization, a takeover in the West Bank. Rather, everyone should be quiet and let the United States and Israel continue with it.

He spoke about the constructive steps of the peace—of the Arab peace agreement very selectively. He said they should move forward towards normalization of relations with Israel. But that wasn’t the main theme of the Arab League peace proposal. It was that there should be a two-state settlement, which the US blocks. I mean, he said some words about a two-state settlement, but not where or when or how or anything else. He said nothing about the core of the problem: the US-backed criminal activities both in Gaza, which they attacked at will, and crucially in the West Bank. That’s the core of the problem.

And you can understand it when you look at his advisers. So, say, Dennis Ross wrote an 800-page book about—in which he blamed Arafat for everything that’s happening—barely mentions the word “settlement” over—which was increasing steadily during the period when he was Clinton’s adviser, in fact peaked, a sharp increase in Clinton’s last year, not a word about it.

So the thrust of his remarks, Obama’s remarks, is that Israel has a right to defend itself by force, even though it has peaceful means to defend itself, that the Arabs must—states must move constructively to normalize relations with Israel, but very carefully omitting the main part of their proposal was that Israel, which is Israel and the United States, should join the overwhelming international consensus for a two-state settlement. That’s missing.


Kommentar till Mitchell, Obamas sändebud till mellanöstern:
In Israel, again, you have to look at what he avoided. He says, “Yes, we want to have a Palestinian state.” Where? OK? He said not a word about—lots of pleasantries about everyone should live in peace, and so on, but where is the Palestinian state? Nothing said about the US-backed actions continuing every day, which are undermining any possibility for a viable Palestinian state: the takeover of the territory; the annexation wall, which is what it is; the takeover of the Jordan Valley; the salients that cut through the West Bank and effectively trisect it; the hundreds of mostly arbitrary checkpoints designed to make Palestinian life impossible—all going on, not a word about them.

So, OK, we can have—in fact, you know, the first Israeli government to talk about a Palestinian state, to even mention the words, was the ultra right-wing Netanyahu government that came in 1996. They were asked, “Could Palestinians have a state?” Peres, who had preceded them, said, “No, never.” And Netanyahu’s spokesman said, “Yeah, the fragments of territory that we leave to them, they can call it a state if they want. Or they can call it fried chicken.” Well, that’s basically the attitude.


Bloggar: Forum För Frihet om Demirbag-Sten i Underlandet:
Som en av styrelsemedlemmar i Röda Korset, har Dilsa aldrig uttalat sig kritiskt mot Israels beskjutning av ambulanser, läkare, beskjutning av FN-s konvoj, bombning av sjukhus, köpcentrum, och skolor. Inte heller solidaritet mot Röda Korsets personal som blev beskjutna av israeliska soldater kunde vi se och höra i Dilsas Underland! Israel hindrade Röda Korsets personal att hjälpa barn som i flera timmar och dagar har suttit bredvid sina döda mammor! Men inte heller om det har Dilsa någonting att säga.

Mera bloggar: Hanna Löfqvist, Motbilder, Paolo Pissoffi och Benny Åsman om en Sydkoreansk bloggare som fängslats.

Läs även andra bloggar om: , , , , , , , , ,

0 kommentarer:

Skicka en kommentar

- Håll er till blogginläggets ämne.
- Inga långa drapor. Länka hellre till er egen blogg isf.
- Tänk på netiketten.
- Rasister och sionister kan dra åt helvete.