Posts
THE
ABSURD TIMES
A
bit of everything
Far
too much has been going on since our last post, so this is an amalgam
of thoughts along with some abstracts and links to both back them up
and to give you a sense of what is really going on rather than what
our corporate media would have us believe.
I
saw the last election and the reaction to it by Republicans
interesting from a psychological point of view. While every
objective and reality-based indication was that Obama would win with
more than 300 electoral votes, and the lowest chance he had of
loosing was about 39% some time ago, these right-wing fanatics, you
can call them 'conservatives' if you feel like it, actually were
shocked by the outcome.
I
see this as a problem with the cognitive processes of the right-wing
mentality. More sensible people are willing to look at reality and
allow for facts, the right-wing mind begins with conclusions and
defines facts based upon those conclusions. For example, evidence
that the earth is over four billion years old and that the universe
is almost 14 billion years old is simply dismissed as “liberal
propaganda”. Evolution presents the same evidence. However,
watching the 'conservatives' on Fox news and elsewhere was amazing.
Romney was infected by that mentality so much that he did not even
consider the possibility that he would lose and thus had no
concession speech written. Carl Rove was apoplectic in his denials,
even after the race had been called. The entire movement is
cognitively impaired and beyond what I have seen in actual paranoid
schizophrenics. So-called 'liberals' are at least willing to
consider facts, even if they do often make stupid decisions such as
bombing people based on them.
To
clarify the point about paranoid schizophrenics: I was studying for
a post-graduate degree in the area of Psychology in a course that
focused on schizophrenia around the time that the Unibomber was news.
His manifesto had just been published and there had been information
disseminated on the corporate news that he had a “high school
education”. From reading the manifesto, or parts of it, I came to
the conclusion that he was at the very least a graduate student in
one of the so-called “hard sciences,” despite its Frankfurt
School oriented subject matter. When I gave this information, I was
confronted with the fact that the disease reduces the average IQ of
those afflicted by about 30 points.
I
pointed out that that paranoid type was the most “organized” of
them and the matter was left there. Later it turned out that he had
a Ph.D. In Mathematics, had published in his field, and had once been
tested at 187. well, considering that the average IQ of a Ph.D. is
about 115, he could afford to loose 30 points and still have an IQ
roughly that of Einstein's. Furthermore, he was able to design these
bombs and develop a delivery system on his own. All of the
sociological and technical information he gained after fully
afflicted with the disease so he was able to recognize facts. I
think this is one reason they accepted the insanity defense as he
would have tied the courts in knots for years with his intellect if
allowed to conduct his own defense and he would have put technology
itself on trial.
On
another front: There is a great deal of justifiable consternation in
Egypt right now. Sure, Morsi did help stop the war between Gaza and
the “zionist entity,” but what did he promise and to whom? It is
not clear. The rumors we have heard are not very encouraging.
His
decision to make his decisions inviolable is understandable as the
judges are all Mubarak appointees. However, what will those
decisions be? That is the question and so far the answers are not
very encouraging (hence our lead cartoon by Carlos the Talented).
The
new proposed constitution incorporates Sharia Law and who the hell is
supposed to interpret that? That's the biggest problem; not the law
itself (which isn't that bad) but who interprets it. “Dress
modestly,” not “cover yourself so you can't breath,” and
“modestly” isn't defined. Hell, we have trouble with our
constitution. What part of “no law” in the first amendment don't
people understand? Why the hell mention “well-regulated militias”
in the second amendment if by “bear arms” you meant machine guns?
Why not flame throwers? No, I can understand why the Egyptians are
protesting again. And if they want a constitution, why not take
ours? We don't use it anyway. Otherwise how do you explain Bradley
Manning?
Syria:
it's terrorism, stupid, not Assad. The problem is that he is not
capitalist and we can't stand that. That's why we attacked Saddam
and Gaddafi. Human rights had nothing to do with it. Afghanistan?
Bush invaded because he was a feminist and wanted to end the
oppression of women? No, that's why Obama uses drones. Wait, he
uses them to attack women and children in Pakistan, our ally, yeah,
that's it.
Oh,
the hell with it. I'm getting tired of this whole thing. Here are a
few articles and links to get everything up to date:
(No,
click on the link to get the illustration)
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2012U.N. Approval of Palestine as "Non-Member State" Shows Isolation of U.S., Israel Stance on Statehood
The
United Nations General Assembly has overwhelmingly voted
recognize the sovereign state of Palestine, upgrading its
observer status from "entity" to "non-member
state." The move is viewed as a victory for Palestinians,
but a diplomatic setback for the United States and Israel, who
were joined by only a handful of countries in opposing the
decision. With more than 190 members in the General Assembly,
there were 138 votes in favor, nine against and 41 abstentions.
Three countries did not take part. The vote came on the 65th
anniversary of the adoption of U.N. Resolution 181 that
partitioned Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. "This
was a referendum on the United States’s mediation of the peace
process between Israelis and Palestinians," says Yousef
Munayyer, executive director of the Jerusalem Fund and its
educational program, the Palestine Center. "The vast
majority of the world, I think, said yesterday that that has
failed, and it’s time for a different approach." [includes
rush transcript]
GUEST:
Yousef
Munayyer,
executive director of the Jerusalem Fund and its educational
program, the Palestine Center.
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This
transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help
us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing
on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous
contribution.DONATE
>
LinksEditor's PicksRelatedTranscript
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We
begin today’s show with Thursday’s vote in the United
Nations General Assembly to recognize the sovereign state of
Palestine. The vote represents a long-sought victory for
Palestinians but a diplomatic setback for the United States and
Israel, who were joined by only a handful of countries in
opposing the decision to upgrade the Palestinian Authority’s
observer status from an "entity" to a "non-member
state." With over 190 members in the General Assembly,
there were 138 votes in favor, nine against and 41 abstentions.
Three countries did not partake in the vote. Palestinian
President Mahmoud Abbas called on the world body to issue its
long overdue "birth certificate."
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD ABBAS: [translated] On the same day which your esteemed body has designated as the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, the General Assembly stands before a moral duty, which it must not hesitate to undertake, and stands before a historic duty, which cannot endure further delay, and before a practical duty to salvage the chances for peace, which is urgent and cannot be postponed. Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, the United Nations General Assembly is called upon today to issue a birth certificate of the reality of the state of Palestine.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Palestinian
President Mahmoud Abbas addressing the U.N. General Assembly
Thursday before the vote, which was held on the 65th anniversary
of the adoption of U.N. Resolution 181 that partitioned
Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. After the world
body granted Palestine non-member status, U.N. Ambassador Susan
Rice—U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, strongly
condemned the decision.
AMB. SUSAN RICE: Progress towards a just and lasting two-state solution cannot be made by pressing a green voting button here in this hall. Nor does passing any resolution create a state where none, indeed, exists or change the reality on the ground. For this reason, today’s vote should not be misconstrued by any as constituting eligibility for U.N. membership. It does not. This resolution does not establish that Palestine is a state. The United States believes the current resolution should not and cannot be read as establishing terms of reference.
AMY GOODMAN: Susan
Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N.
To
talk more about the significance of this vote, we to go
Washington, D.C., to speak with Yousef Munayyer. He’s
executive director of the Jerusalem Fund educational program, as
well, the Palestine Center.
Welcome
back to Democracy
Now!,
Yousef. Your response to this vote? Do you consider this
historic?
YOUSEF MUNAYYER: Well,
it’s certainly—it’s certainly historic. What it means,
though, I think, is what—what is the bigger question here.
Look, there is still a occupation of Palestine. The colonization
of Palestinian territory continues. It continues today just as
it was yesterday. So that has not changed. What I think is
important, though, is that the United States and Israel and
very, very few people, very few states who voted against this,
are really isolated now internationally. And I think that was
the important symbolism of this vote yesterday, is that this was
a referendum on the United States’s mediation of the peace
process between Israelis and Palestinians, and the vast majority
of the world, I think, said yesterday that that has failed, and
it’s time for a different approach.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And
Yousef, what do you make of the—it seems that both Israel and
the United States were very concerned about the potential now
with this vote for the Palestinian Authority to go to the
International Criminal Court and begin to raise concerns about
war crimes by Israel on the Palestinian people. Can you talk
about that?
YOUSEF MUNAYYER: Sure.
And I don’t understand what the reason to be concerned is. If
the Israelis are in fact not guilty of war crimes, they should
not have a problem defending themselves before any international
body. And so, I don’t think that that should be a problem. I
think the reason the United States and the Israelis are so upset
about the Palestinians having the opportunity to go in that
direction—not going in that direction, but just having the
opportunity to go in that direction—is that it takes them
outside of a process that has been mediated by the United
States, wherein Israel has been able to have their way with the
Palestinians and have the United States in their corner the
entire time. And so, of course, the United States and Israel are
very frustrated by this, not because there’s anything really
wrong with being able to use those international forums for
justice, but because it takes the ball out of the court of the
United States and Israel where U.S. mediation gives Israel a
distinct advantage.
AMY GOODMAN: I
wanted to play for you Israel Ambassador to the U.N. Ron
Prosor’s explanation before the vote, why Israel would not be
supporting it.
AMB. RON PROSOR: Israel is prepared to live in peace with a Palestinian state, but for peace to endure, Israel’s security must be protected. The Palestinians must recognize the Jewish state, and they must be prepared to end the conflict with Israel once and for all. None of these vital interests, these vital interests of peace—none of them—appear in the resolution that will be put forward before the General Assembly today, and that is why Israel cannot accept it. The only way to achieve peace is through agreements that are reached by the parties and not through the U.N., resolutions that completely ignore Israel’s vital security and national interests. And because this resolution is so one-sided, it doesn’t advance peace. It pursues—it then pushes it backwards. As for the rights of the Jewish people in this land, I have a simple message for those people gathered in the General Assembly today: No decision by the U.N. can break the 4,000-year-old bond between the people of Israel and the land of Israel.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s
Israel’s ambassador to the U.N., Ron Prosor. Yousef Munayyer,
executive director of the Jerusalem Fund, your response?
YOUSEF MUNAYYER: Right,
well, I think, you know, he made—he made the statement that
the—of the Israeli position and the American position, which
is that, you know, any progress has to come through
negotiations. The problem is, negotiations have a track record.
The reality is, in the past 20 years of negotiations mediated by
the United States since the Madrid Conference in 1991, we have
seen only continued and aggressive Israeli colonization of
Palestinian territory. The average number of settler population
growth from 1967 to 1991 was about 8,000 settlers a year. During
the peace process years, that number increased to over 20,000
settlers a year. So, the peace process only acted as a cover, an
international cover, for Israeli colonization of Palestinian
territory.
And
so, it’s very easy to say, "We invite the Palestinians
back to the negotiating table." The question is, why on
earth would the Palestinians ever want to go back to a
negotiating table like that? If there’s going to be
discussions based on international law, based on meeting actual
obligations, based on evenhanded mediation, in that case, then
you can talk about having serious negotiations. But the
negotiations that we’ve seen for the past 20 years have been a
farce and have only acted to allow Israel to continue to occupy
and colonize Palestinian territory. I think what we saw
yesterday was the Palestinians making the argument that those
negotiations have been a farce, and the vast majority of the
world agreeing with them. And I think that the few "no"
votes that we’ve seen, including the United States, Israel, a
couple other countries and a few Pacific islands, shows how
isolated the United States is in their approach of defending the
Israelis, right or wrong.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yousef,
I’d like to ask you about the reaction of another major
figure, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who spoke just after
the votes were announced, and particularly in light of the fact
that she is not only the outgoing secretary of state, but widely
considered to be the leading Democrat—candidate for the
Democratic nomination four years from now for president. This is
what she had to say.
SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON:Before I begin, I want to say a few words about the unfortunate and counterproductive resolution at the United Nations General Assembly that just passed, because it places further obstacles in the path to peace. We have been clear that only through direct negotiations between the parties can the Palestinians and Israelis achieve the peace they both deserve: two states for two people, with a sovereign, viable, independent Palestine living side by side in peace and security with a Jewish and democratic Israel.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Your
reaction, Yousef Munayyer?
YOUSEF MUNAYYER: Look,
I think, you know, the secretary of state’s reaction, you
know, the reaction from the U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations, Susan Rice, yesterday, all of them really underscore
the Palestinians’ point in this argument, that the United
States is simply uncapable of being an evenhanded mediator. The
United States reacted more harshly yesterday and with stronger
condemnation for the action of a completely nonviolent
diplomatic move in the United Nations, that was as multilateral
as it can get, than they do to the continued settlement
expansion in Palestinian territory, which is as unilateral as
you can get and as much of a move that undermines the viability
of a Palestinian state as could possibly be. So I think it
really underscores exactly why the U.S. is incapable of
mediating this conflict. Look—
AMY GOODMAN: Yousef—
YOUSEF MUNAYYER: —domestic—go
ahead, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: Go
ahead, Yousef.
YOUSEF MUNAYYER: Domestic
politics in the United States make it very difficult for anyone
with political ambitions to be evenhanded about this issue. And
you know what? Palestinians get that. We understand that the
United States has its politics, as every country does, and
that’s fine. That’s for the United States to figure out
what’s best for them. But you know what? If that’s going to
be the case, if that’s the way that the United States is, and
if it is so uncapable of being an evenhanded mediator, fine.
Don’t stand in the way of the rest of the world, though, with
persistent vetoes in the United Nations Security Council,
preventing anyone else from doing anything—
AMY GOODMAN: Yousef—
YOUSEF MUNAYYER: —because
while the United States—go ahead, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: I
wanted to ask what you think changed this year, because the U.S.
succeeded in preventing this kind of vote from happening before.
And finally, what exactly does it mean? What—this puts
Palestine—it’s a very unusual status. Is it the Vatican
alone that has this status at the United Nations?
YOUSEF MUNAYYER: Sure.
Well, what changed this time is that the United States couldn’t
use their veto, because this is not a U.N. Security Council
vote. I think that that’s the biggest change here. This is a
vote in the United Nations General Assembly, which is based on
a—you know, a more democratic vote-counting system where no
one party can torpedo the outcome in the way that the United
States has been able to do on not just Palestinian statehood,
but a variety of U.N. Security Council resolutions concerning
Palestine over—over past decades. Over the past 30 years or
so, there have been more than 40 U.N. Security Council
resolutions condemning Israeli actions, in which the United
States has been the single, solitary "no" vote in the
United Nations Security Council. The U.S. has used its position
in the United Nations Security Council to prevent any
international action and to corner the peace process for itself,
which, again, it has proved it cannot evenhandedly mediate.
Regarding
your—your other point about—your other question about, you
know, what status is this, this is a minor change of status for
Palestine within the United Nations. There have been a number of
different states that have had this status and have eventually
moved to full recognition as member states in the past. Right
now, it does not change anything, really, on the ground for the
Palestinians, but affords them some opportunities to redress
grievances in other international institutions, like the
International court—Criminal Court, and so on.
But
the important thing, moving forward, is, what is this going to
mean for people on the ground? And here’s the really important
possible outcome here. This is the strategy of some Palestinian
leaders, particularly in thePLO, the Fatah-led camp in the West
Bank. The strategy of other leaders who believe in armed
struggle was on display in recent weeks in what we saw in Gaza.
A third camp among Palestinians, which I think overlaps the
other two, which is Palestinian civil society, they have called
for boycott, divestment and sanctions against the state of
Israel for their continued occupation of Palestine. And so, all
of them agree that there need to be costs imposed on the
Israelis to change the situation, to change the status quo. And
now it’s a question of which strategy is going to be the most
effective. And I think what the United States and other parties
around the world need to do is realize that they can incentivize
the Palestinians towards a strategy that is in everybody’s
interest. Clearly, uneven negotiations have not been successful.
And so, we need to incentivize Palestinians in a direction that
is towards their liberation and not towards the continued
colonization of their territory.
AMY GOODMAN: Yousef
Munayyer, I want to thank you very much for being with us,
executive director of the Jerusalem Fund and its educational
program, the Palestine Center. This is Democracy
Now! When
we come back, we’re going to find out the latest that’s
happening in the Congo and also speak with Michael Ratner, the
attorney for Julian Assange who was in the courtroom yesterday
when Bradley Manning spoke out for the first time after two
years in prison. Stay with us.
 The
original content of this program is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United
States License.
Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org.
Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may
be separately licensed. For further information or additional
permissions, contact
us. |
Read more of this post |
Read more of this post |
Read more of this post |
 Editor's Note: For those like me who love Israel and wish to see its citizens safe and secure, and know that that can only happen when Palestinians are also safe and secure, the defacto abrogating of the possibllity of a two state solution should Israel follow through on its punishment of the Palestinians by building in the area cutting the possible Palestinian state in two is a tragic error. Please read the Ha'aretz editorial below. It makes me sad to imagine what will happpen when Palestinians actually see the 2 state solution destroyed in coming years by a Netanyahu-Likud-Beiteinu government, and are then driven into the hands of Hamas or other extremists. The only plausible alternative is for them to demand "one person, one vote" inside Israel, and that is not going to be accepted by many Israelis who still feel scared enough of the world to believe that their only safety comes in a state with a Jewish majority. I discuss these issues in more detail in my 2012 book Embracing Israel/Palestine which you might want to consider for a holiday gift for your Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and secular friends www.tikkun.org/EIP . Meanwhile, it is disappointing to listen to the Reform movement (Union of Reform Judaism) dealing with all this by castigating Palestinians for seeking recognition at the U.N., as though their desire for international support is somehow a crime, when in fact it was the logical outcome of Israel blocking any serious negotiations by refusing to stop expanding its West Bank settlements. Here is a part of what they said after the vote this past Thursday: "We are deeply disappointed in the results of the vote in the United Nations yesterday to accept Palestinian non-member observer state status. We believe this decision will undercut incentives for a final agreement that must be negotiated by the two impacted parties directly. We are also concerned about the potential for this decision to enable the Palestinians to challenge Israel, both diplomatically and legally, in the international arena in UN sponsored venues such as the International Criminal Court, a move that will do serious damage to rebuilding the trust between Israel and the Palestinians. We want to commend--and thank--the United States and Canada for their vigorous position [opposing UN recognition of the Palestinian state] regarding this UN vote. We agree with Secretary of State Clinton who said that: '"Only through direct negotiations between the parties can the Palestinians and Israelis achieve the peace that both deserve: two states for two people, with a sovereign, viable and independent Palestine living side-by-side in peace and security with a Jewish and democratic Israel.' HELLO???? Has the Reform movement been asleep or ethically unconscious these past 18 years after Oslo when negotiations have led nowhere and Israel has expanded its Occupation dramatically and refused the 2009 demand of both President Obama and the Palestinians to stop building settlements while negotiations took place? Have they not even bothered to read the daily coverage of what the Israeli newspaper calls Israel's "arrogance" (see below) in dealing with the Palestinian people. Bad enough that the Obama Administration has fallen back from its original demand, but what about Reform Jews--have they really lost their moral compass on this issue? The Reform movement in Judaism was once a leader of ethical consciousness--and still is on almost every issue both in the US and Israel--except the one most important issue facing the Jewish people: reconciliation and peace with Palestinians. I hope that Reform rabbis will have the courage to stand up and not allow their important movement to continue to avoid its ethical responsibilities when it comes to challenging Israeli policies that continue to thwart the 2 state solution to which the Reform movement (along with Netanyahu) gives lip service.--Rabbi Michael Lerner  Israel's punishmentThe other side said its piece loud and clear: Yes to a two-state solution. But Israel's government responded with a step that, first and foremost, punishes Israel.Haaretz Editorial | Dec.02, 2012 | 2:23 AMThe government decided this weekend to build another 3,000 housing units in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and also to move ahead with planning and building procedures for the E1 area, located between Jerusalem and the West Bank settlement of Ma'aleh Adumim. That is how the government responded to the UN General Assembly's decision to recognize Palestine as a nonmember observer state; that is how the government decided to punish the Palestinians and the world.The latter said its piece loud and clear: Yes to a two-state solution. But Israel's government responded with a step that, first and foremost, punishes Israel. The only positive aspect of this decision is the fact that Israel has recognized that the settlements are indeed a punishment. This is a particularly grave and dangerous decision. Instead of internalizing the fact that a sweeping majority of nations are sick of the Israeli occupation and want a Palestinian state, Israel is entrenching itself even further in its own rejectionism, and deepening its isolation and the disconnect between itself and the international reality. Instead of drawing the necessary conclusions from its resounding failure, the government is dragging Israel into additional diplomatic disasters. And instead of embarking on sincere, genuine negotiations with the new observer state, Israel is turning its back on it, and on the world. The government's decision is the last nail in the coffin of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Bar-Ilan University speech in 2009. It is proof positive that this speech, in which he ostensibly accepted the principle of two states, was merely a deception. What is particularly astounding, however, is the violation of Israel's commitment to the United States not to build in E1, given that construction there would preclude the establishment of a contiguous Palestinian state in the West Bank. After America was left as virtually the last supporter of Israel's position at the United Nations, Israel is repaying it with a resounding slap in the face. Israel's decision is also a slap in the face to another loyal friend, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who explained Germany's abstention in the vote as stemming from Israel's refusal to stop construction in the territories. So, even before the next election, in which the joint "Likud-Beiteinu" ticket is presenting an especially right-wing, extremist slate, Netanyahu has already signaled where he is heading: toward extremism, diplomatic isolation, denunciation and ostracism by the world. The world - even including the United States this time - can't allow Israel's arrogant response to pass quietly. This very government decision might serve as a spur to those who want to transfer the settlements issue to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, as punishment for the "punishment" imposed by Israel. And the next time Israel needs the world's help, on the Iranian issue or on any other, the world will remember this decision. http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/israel-s-punishment-1.481805 |
