Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Israel to U.S. : Now Deal with Syria and Iran -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (13430)	11/30/2006 6:32:29 PM
From: sea_urchin	Respond to of 22250

Israelis adopt what South Africa dropped By JOHN DUGARD ajc.com >>APARTHEID Former President Jimmy Carter's new book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," is igniting controversy for its allegation that Israel practices a form of apartheid. As a South African and former anti-apartheid advocate who visits the Palestinian territories regularly to assess the human rights situation for the U.N. Human Rights Council, the comparison to South African apartheid is of special interest to me. On the face of it, the two regimes are very different. Apartheid was a system of institutionalized racial discrimination that the white minority in South Africa employed to maintain power over the black majority. It was characterized by the denial of political rights to blacks, the fragmentation of the country into white areas and black areas (called Bantustans) and by the imposition on blacks of restrictive measures designed to achieve white superiority, racial separation and white security. The "pass system," which sought to prevent the free movement of blacks and to restrict their entry to the cities, was rigorously enforced. Blacks were forcibly "relocated," and they were denied access to most public amenities and to many forms of employment. The system was enforced by a brutal security apparatus in which torture played a significant role. The Palestinian territories — East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza — have been under Israeli military occupation since 1967. Although military occupation is tolerated and regulated by international law, it is considered an undesirable regime that should be ended as soon as possible. The United Nations for nearly 40 years has condemned Israel's military occupation, together with colonialism and apartheid, as contrary to the international public order. In principle, the purpose of military occupation is different from that of apartheid. It is not designed as a long-term oppressive regime but as an interim measure that maintains law and order in a territory following an armed conflict and pending a peace settlement. But this is not the nature of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Since 1967 Israel has imposed its control over the Palestinian territories in the manner of a colonizing power, under the guise of occupation. It has permanently seized the territories' most desirable parts — the holy sites in East Jerusalem, Hebron and Bethlehem and the fertile agricultural lands along the western border and in the Jordan Valley — and settled its own Jewish "colonists" throughout the land. Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories has many features of colonization. At the same time it has many of the worst characteristics of apartheid. The West Bank has been fragmented into three areas — north (Jenin and Nablus), center (Ramallah) and south (Hebron) — which increasingly resemble the Bantustans of South Africa. Restrictions on freedom of movement imposed by a rigid permit system enforced by some 520 checkpoints and roadblocks resemble, but in severity go well beyond, apartheid's "pass system." And the security apparatus is reminiscent of that of apartheid, with more than 10,000 Palestinians in Israeli prisons and frequent allegations of torture and cruel treatment. Many aspects of Israel's occupation surpass those of the apartheid regime. Israel's large-scale destruction of Palestinian homes, leveling of agricultural lands, military incursions and targeted assassinations of Palestinians far exceed any similar practices in apartheid South Africa. No wall was ever built to separate blacks and whites. Following the worldwide anti-apartheid movement, one might expect a similarly concerted international effort united in opposition to Israel's abhorrent treatment of the Palestinians. Instead one finds an international community divided between the West and the rest of the world. The Security Council is prevented from taking action because of the U.S. veto and European Union abstinence. And the United States and the European Union, acting in collusion with the United Nations and the Russian Federation, have in effect imposed economic sanctions on the Palestinian people for having, by democratic means, elected a government deemed unacceptable to Israel and the West. Forgotten is the commitment to putting an end to occupation, colonization and apartheid. In these circumstances, the United States should not be surprised if the rest of the world begins to lose faith in its commitment to human rights. Some Americans — rightly — complain that other countries are unconcerned about Sudan's violence-torn Darfur region and similar situations in the world. But while the United States itself maintains a double standard with respect to Palestine it cannot expect cooperation from others in the struggle for human rights.<<

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (13430)	12/1/2006 12:57:25 AM
From: LTK007	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22250

This just turned up as a lead headliner on my Google News web page. It CONFIRMS the correctness of my bitteringly expressed last post. via TIME Magazine web-site time.com Because of aspects of content in article i myself must remind i was 100% opposed to this war from well before it began, and stated NO matter how they approached this war, it would be a disaster, and for everyone. We will be getting more and more of "well we should have had more troops from the start, yada, yada and we would have won"-- all utter crap! ************************************************************ As Iraq Bleeds, the U.S. Policy Cupboard Remains Bare Analysis: Despite the hype, the Baker group's recommendations may be too little and too late to turn Iraq around By MARK THOMPSON/WASHINGTON.................................................(i edited out all the preamble and cut to the chase) And if the climax of this cliffhanger was supposed to be former Secretary of State James Baker leading the cavalry to the rescue, the reports of his group's conclusions are not exactly reassuring. There is a sense of profound foreboding in Washington that events in Iraq have spiraled downward beyond anyone's control, and that all the Bush administration can now do is contain the resulting damage. The Baker report, the fruit of a 10-member bipartisan panel created by Congress, sought — but failed to find — any silver bullet to reverse the slide in Iraq. Like many such efforts that subcontract the thinking that Americans expect to be done by their president and lawmakers, the panel appears set to recommend goals without specifying the tools to achieve them. It will declare that the U.S. military presence in Iraq not be open-ended while simultaneously refusing to set a timetable for its withdrawal. At the same time it will call — as has incoming defense chief Robert Gates — for the Bush administration to talk to Iran and Syria over Iraq's future, something Bush has been loathe to do. Bush and his military leaders have made it clear they want U.S. forces to remain in Iraq for the foreseeable future without a significant hike in troop levels. That, defense officials say, is unlikely to change the dynamic on the ground and — absent some political push that achieves a semblance of peace — is only likely to continue the grim parade of the flag-draped coffins of U.S. troops into Dover Air Force Base. There is a growing sense in the capital that the Baker panel may be reporting too late to do any good. Indeed, hindsight suggests that "Too Little, Too Late" might be a more appropriate title for what the Pentagon christened Operation Iraqi Freedom. Lacking sufficient troops and armor to calm Iraq following the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, U.S. troops were unable to suppress the insurgency that has percolated for three years. Now, with the addition of Shi'ite and Sunni militias fighting for control of Baghdad, the U.S. military doesn't have the firepower, or, it seems, the stomach to launch a battle for control of the Iraqi capital. Given the current situation on the ground, and absent an Iraqi initiative to turn matters around, it's likely that U.S. forces will continue to bleed and die until Bush tosses in the towel — or the new Democrat-controlled Congress forces him to do so.(edit: Again i say, IMPEACHMENT will be likely the ONLY option, imHo---max:) As the situation on the ground in Iraq grows uglier, Washington increasingly seems willing to blame the downturn on Maliki's lack of clout and the poor performance of the Iraqi military. This strikes Anthony Cordesman, an expert on the war with the Center for Security and Strategic Studies, as a bit dubious. He said, Wednesday, "The idea that when you send the bull in to liberate a china shop, [and then] you blame the china shop for breaking the china is, shall we say, somewhat ingenuous, and probably misleading." But it may reflect a growing desire among many in Washington to wash their hands of a problem that, for the foreseeable future, may have no solution.>>