Sic Semper Tyrannis

UK condemns Israeli attack

 "Earlier in the day the prime minister, David Cameron, used question-time in the House of Commons to call the Israeli attack on the flotilla "completely unacceptable".

Together the attacks on Israel and its government amount to a new low in the rapidly deteriorating relationship between Britain and Israel.

While the Foreign Office has often notoriously been criticised for pro-Arab leanings, the Israelis have always been assured of an understanding ear in Downing Street, particularly under the governments of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair. That may now have changed.

Tory and Labour MPs joined in the criticism from the backbenches of Israel in the Commons."  Telegraph

-----------------------------------------------

Is it really true that our president negotiated with Netanyahu over the text of the Security Council declaration on this attack?  Is that really true?  Why would he do that?  To keep Israel negotiating with Abbas?  Why should we beg the Israelis to do anything?  We kept the UN from condemning this attack. Why? Why would we do that?  What did the Israelis give us in return for our support?  What?  

There is another relief ship or "terror ship" as Israel is calling it.  It is called the "Rachel Corrie" named for an American girl killed by Israeli soldiers while she tried to stop a bulldozer from demolishing a Palestinian home... What will happen to this ship?  Is Obama's next move to apologize to the Israelis for the anti-Semitism of the people on the ships.

If war eventually develops out of this mess, we would be wis not to side with the Israelis.  There are lessons in American history abut situations like this.  They were taught by men like Emerson and Thoreau, two of my favorite Yankees.  pl 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7798765/Gaza-flotilla-attack-William-Hague-attacks-Israel-over-arrests.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie

"...Hekmatyar shuns peace jirga but offers own deal"

 "Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the leader of Hizb-i-Islami, one ofAfghanistan’s three main insurgent factions, told the Monitor in an e-mail interview that his group decided to open talks with the Afghan government after US President Barack Obama and other Western leaders mentioned the possibility of starting to withdraw troops as early as July 2011.

“They said that the chaos in Afghanistan does not have a military solution. They said they could not defeat the opposition to this regime by fighting,” Mr. Hekmatyar wrote from an undisclosed location. “Because of that, we gave a complete and logical proposal” for peace to the government.

High-ranking officials with Hizb-i-Islami, including the group’s spokesman, verified that the responses were Hekmatyar’s.

The prospects of a deal with Hekmatyar are still far off, given that some of his demands – such as foreign troop withdrawal this year and early elections – are unlikely to be accepted by the US and the Afghan government. And any deal is unlikely to sway the Taliban, the strongest of the insurgent groups, to themselves come to the table."  CS Monitor

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hikmatyar is an unpleasant man.  He was one of the leaders of the Mujahideen who fought the Soviets and then was later defeated by the Taliban in the civil war that followed Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.  Now he is more or less aligned with the Taliban in opposition to Karazai and us.  He is both a Pashtun and a Sunni Muslim zealot.  He is not a Wahhabi influenced Al-Qa'ida person.  He wants all foreign forces out of the country. He sees the opportunity that our emerging predicament presents.  

His desire to make a deal puts our declarations about our intentions in Afghanistan to the test.  Do we intend to leave or not?  pl 

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2010/0602/Afghanistan-warlord-Hekmatyar-shuns-peace-jirga-but-offers-own-deal

Spitzer

 I was beginning to have some respect for Eliot Spitzer again.  His performances on TV, especially on Dylan Ratigan's talk show are impressive, but today he lost it, lost it in a welter of irrational tribal babble over the Israeli attack on the Turkish ships.

Faced with another man (whose name I missed) who insisted that Hamas is the duly elected government of Gaza, Spitzer ranted and raved about the hostility of Hamas to Israel.  The heat expressed on his part over Hamas' strategic bombardment of Israel with pipe bomb rockets made in a car repair garage was a wonder to behold.

According to Spitzer, Hamas is an utterly implacable enemy of Israel.  This despite Charlie Rose's interview with Khalid Mishal in Damascus which shows just the opposite.

The truth is that Israel has their own group of Palestinians that they prefer.  That is the Palestinian Authority, the incredibly corrupt "forty thieves."  THAT is why the Israeli government will not talk to Hamas.  

Christopher Matthews also signed on tonight with support of Israel.  He should stick with that.  Job security.  The Christian Brothers and Society of Jesus must be proud of his courage.  pl

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11032

The war at sea for hearts and minds.

"We will not turn our back on Palestine, Palestinians and Gaza," Erdogan said.
"No one should test Turkey's patience," he added. "Turkey's hostility is as strong as its friendship is valuable."
He urged Israelis to question the actions of their government.
"It is damaging your country's image by conducting banditry and piracy," Erdogan said. "It is damaging interests of Israel and your peace and safety. It is the Israeli people who must stop the Israeli government in the first place."
He said Israel cannot face the international community without expressing "regret."
"Israel cannot ensure its security by drawing the hatred of the entire world," the prime minister declared."  Jpost

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Geraldi is correct.  The Turks will not back down and as Erdogan says their hostility is likely to be enduring.  I suppose there is some justification in international law for this attack but the Turks will be unimpressed by that. They see this as a unilateral attack by Israel on a Turkish flagged ship in international waters.  To them this appears to be an act of war.  Actually, how else can they see it?  It is true that the flotilla project clearly aimed to provoke a crisis and thus bring on a process that might force a halt to Gaza's isolation.  A man named Shapiro who is one of the leaders of the group was quite open about that when he appeared on the Newshour last evening.  Does that political intent validate Israel's action?  I think not and neither do the Turks.  Israel's ambassador was on the same Newshour program and he was frank in saying that Palestinian support for Hamas is declining and implied that the reason for this is Israel's economic blockade of Gaza.  I suppose that Israel believes that it can "starve"  the Palestinians into abandoning Hamas in this giant outdoor prison.  This is not likely.  Perhaps someone can supply an example of such blockade and sanctions producing political change?

Israel increasingly behaves as does a bully who merely wishes to dominate the neighborhood by beating up the littler kids on the block. Some of us watched Charlie Rose interview Bashar Assad and Khalid Mishal in Damascus.  Both men sounded remarkably rational and willing to compromise.  Rose looked shocked.  Shocked!  He kept trying to get the Hamas leader to show anger and intent for mass murder of Jews.  He did not succeed.  Rose could have edited all that out.  He did not.   I am impressed.  

Time is starting to run out for an Israel whose policy is based on bullying and domination.  There is another peacenik ship headed for Gaza..  This will be interesting.  pl 

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=177138