Reply With Quote
damn gypsies
these bedouins?
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/...the-holy-land/
The Bedouin of Israel and the occupied territories are easy to pick on. Self-identifying as neither Israeli nor Palestinian, not often considered as such by either community in return, their plight is less attention-grabbing, less politically-infused than that of other communities in the Holy Land. Accordingly, when their rights are apparently under assault, their suffering can easily disappear under the radar.
Never fully comfortable guests in either national camp, it is the actions of Israel that ostensibly have been the most cruel to the Bedouin. In July 2010, Israeli forces swept into the village of Al-Araqib in Israel’s southern Negev (Arabic: Naqab) desert, destroying houses, olive trees, animal shelters to clear the “unrecognised” land of its allegedly illegal occupants.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7AM2EZ20111123
Bulldozed by Israel more than two dozen times, a village known by Bedouin Arabs as Al-Arakib is one of many ramshackle desert communities whose names have never appeared on any official map.
If Israel's parliament adopts proposed new legislation, it never will.
The plan to demolish more Bedouin homes in the southern Negev region and move 30,000 people to government-authorized villages connected to power and water lines has been hailed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a "historic opportunity" to improve Bedouin lives.
But Israeli Arab leaders, who have long complained about discrimination against their community in the Jewish state, call it "ethnic cleansing," and aim to thwart the project with protests, a general strike and appeals to the United Nations to intervene.
damn gypsies
I traveled from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem with one of my work colleagues, for a meeting. About two weeks later, we went back for a follow-up meeting. As we drove, I looked out my window and saw something that made me blurt out, "What the is that!!?" There on one of the hills was a HUGE encampment of tents and ramshackle tin buildings. The driver of the car didn't seem surprised at all. He told me it was sort of a squatter's village. I was just shocked at the size of it, and the fact that it wasn't there a couple of weeks before.
He went on to tell me that within a few months, there would be scores of permanent buildings going up. (Everything there is made of concrete.) And then, he said, they would claim that they had always lived there, and the land would effectively belong to them. Most normal people (other than Boutons, Che, and the like) would be a little freaked out by that. I was.
I asked why the government didn't stop them. He just shrugged, "What can you do?" I said I didn't know, but you just allow people to seize land like that? He had pulled to the side of the road, to let me have a look. He pointed to a spot on the ridge, "You see that satellite truck up there? Al-Jazerra. If we even talk mean to them, the video will go out all over the world by the next morning, and we will be accused of kicking them off their land."
It's an amazing dance. They claim that it is some historic settlement, knowing that it's a lie. Because, as Boutons explained so eloquently, the truth doesn't matter. The ends justify the means, and anything is okay because they have "right" on their side. And they call other people religious zealots.
Can you imagine any country, anywhere in the world, putting up with that? Why does Israel? Because they are fighting a battle of public perception in the media, and their gun doesn't have any bullets. The media distributes everything Al-Jazeera says, without question. And a bunch of sheep buy into everything they are told to believe.
There's a follow-up to the story. I was driving to the Galilee area, and passed a mature version of the village I described. There were hundreds, if not thousands of homes built on both sides of the highway. Every one of them looked as if it was still under construction, because there were ledges on the top story with long pieces of rebar sticking upward. You will note that these were not hovels. They were mostly two-story homes, as nice as nearly any in Tel Aviv. (Above average, really.) But overall, there was a shabby appearance, because of the exposed rebar.
When we got to our destination, I asked someone about all the unfinished houses. They explained that there was no tax on a house still under construction. So they finish their houses to appear to be unfinished. And that way, they don't pay their share of taxes. The Jewish inhabitants pay to educate their children, and they get the same quality of education as everyone else. The Jewish inhabitants pay to bring water lines and electricity to the villages, because to do otherwise would be wrong. And they get all of that for free. They take and take, without giving their fair share, and still about everything. Is it any wonder that they appeal to people like Boutons?
How about another follow-up. There's a highway leading out of Jerusalem. (Different road.) Along both sides, there are miles of these gigantic bullet-proof screens. Why? Because one of those "squatters villages" sprung up on both sides of the highway, and the residents thought it was fun to sit up on the hills and shoot innocent people driving by. , yeah. Kill 'em like hunting deer.
Why did they build miles of bullet-proof shields, rather than go after the bas s shooting people? Same reason they don't get rid of the illegal villages to begin with. Because, by the time the story got to televisions around the world, it would say that the mean Jews were harassing the peaceful villagers.
Can you imagine having to live like that? Having people shoot at you while you drive home, for no reason? Being unable to stop the murderers, out of fear of public opinion? Being forced to spend the money on a bullet-proof screen, because it's the only alternative open to you? And THEN, still being accused of mistreating the murderers?
It's really easy for people like Che to spout the propaganda they have been fed. They've never had to live with the realities. I guarantee you, NONE of the rest of you would feel like the villian if the government chose to bulldoze the damn village. No matter what some people try to tell you, the tolerance of the Israelis is far, far beyond anything I have seen elsewhere. Most of you would not believe the daily level of provocation and outrageous behavior they live with.
AIPAC Works for the 1 Percent
AIPAC does not drive Middle Eastern policy in the United States. I am afraid it is worse than that. AIPAC is one of an array of powerful and well-funded neoconservative ins utions that worship force and drive our relations with the rest of the world. These neoconservatives choose an enemy and then our compliant class of journalists, specialists, military analysts, columnists and television commentators line up to serve as giddy cheerleaders for war. Moments like these always make me embarrassed to be a reporter. Our political elite, Republican and Democrat, finds in this ideology a simple, childish allure. This ideology does not require cultural, historical or linguistic literacy. It reduces the world to black and white, good and evil. The drumbeat for war with Iran sounded by AIPAC is part of this broad, sick, binary vision of a world that can be subjugated by force, a world where all will be made to kneel before these corporate and neoconservative elites, where none, including finally us, will be permitted to whisper dissent.
Pre-emptive war, under post-Nuremberg law, is defined as a criminal act of aggression. George W. Bush, whose disregard for the rule of law was legend, went to the U.N. for a resolution to attack Iraq, although his interpretation of the U.N. resolution as justifying the invasion of Iraq had dubious legal merit. But in this current debate over war with Iran, that pretense of legality is ignored. Where is Israel’s U.N. resolution authorizing it to strike Iran? Why isn’t anyone demanding that Israel seek one? Why does the only discussion in the media and among political elites center around the questions of “Will Israel attack Iran?” “Can it successfully carry out an attack?” “What will happen if there is an attack?” The essential question is left unasked. Does Israel have the right to attack Iran? And here the answer is very, very clear. It does not.
These neoconservatives were too blind and too enamored of their own power to see what invading Afghanistan and Iraq would trigger; so too are they unable to comprehend the regional conflagration that would be unleashed by attacking Iran, what it would mean for us, for Israel, for our allies and for tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of innocents.
“Where there is no vision, the people perish,” the Bible warns.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/print...cent_20120304/
The MIC wants this war to continue to suck wealth from taxpayers.
AIPAC Works for the 1 Percent
AIPAC does not drive Middle Eastern policy in the United States. I am afraid it is worse than that. AIPAC is one of an array of powerful and well-funded neoconservative ins utions that worship force and drive our relations with the rest of the world. These neoconservatives choose an enemy and then our compliant class of journalists, specialists, military analysts, columnists and television commentators line up to serve as giddy cheerleaders for war. Moments like these always make me embarrassed to be a reporter. Our political elite, Republican and Democrat, finds in this ideology a simple, childish allure. This ideology does not require cultural, historical or linguistic literacy. It reduces the world to black and white, good and evil. The drumbeat for war with Iran sounded by AIPAC is part of this broad, sick, binary vision of a world that can be subjugated by force, a world where all will be made to kneel before these corporate and neoconservative elites, where none, including finally us, will be permitted to whisper dissent.
Pre-emptive war, under post-Nuremberg law, is defined as a criminal act of aggression. George W. Bush, whose disregard for the rule of law was legend, went to the U.N. for a resolution to attack Iraq, although his interpretation of the U.N. resolution as justifying the invasion of Iraq had dubious legal merit. But in this current debate over war with Iran, that pretense of legality is ignored. Where is Israel’s U.N. resolution authorizing it to strike Iran? Why isn’t anyone demanding that Israel seek one? Why does the only discussion in the media and among political elites center around the questions of “Will Israel attack Iran?” “Can it successfully carry out an attack?” “What will happen if there is an attack?” The essential question is left unasked. Does Israel have the right to attack Iran? And here the answer is very, very clear. It does not.
These neoconservatives were too blind and too enamored of their own power to see what invading Afghanistan and Iraq would trigger; so too are they unable to comprehend the regional conflagration that would be unleashed by attacking Iran, what it would mean for us, for Israel, for our allies and for tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of innocents.
“Where there is no vision, the people perish,” the Bible warns.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/print...cent_20120304/
The MIC, the UCA, drive the US into wars as their business opportunities.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions