More on Israel Violating Its Obligations As a State

Are cemeteries considered holy places? Death and burials are treated different in each religion and individual cemeteries tend to contain resting places of people of a common faith. Therefore, cemeteries are to be considered holy places.

Excerpts of the United Nations General Assembly Partition Resolution for Palestine:

• Existing rights in respect of Holy Places and religious buildings or sites shall not be denied or impaired subject to the requirements of national security, public order, and decorum


• No act shall be permitted which may in any way impair their sacred character

Israel has desecrated Muslim cemeteries in Palestine, usually to build on top of them. Could it be a matter of national security? Regarding at least one instance: Is building a hotel ever a matter of national security? Regarding every instance: Building on a commercial site on top of a cemetery impairs the sacred character and the right of family and friends to visit the religious site and their deceased loved ones.

How did the Jews get into Palestine anyway?

Most Jews in Palestine today are families of immigrants. The Zionist ideology was created in the 1800s. As more and more Jews entered Palestine, they took up the jobs and natural resources which previously belonged to Palestinians. Once Jews became owners of land, they refused to hire Palestinian laborers and only more Jews could work the land and live in the kibbutzes (Jewish settlements). This is a principle of Zionism.

The Palestinian economy began to suffer so much that Jewish immigration into Palestine was restricted by the British Mandate in the 1900s. These restrictions were not effective though, because the Jews wanted more people to enter Palestine at a quicker pace. There was never a plan to end Jewish immigration, only keep it at a rate that the economy could support, which would be beneficial for all. The Jews disobeyed. There was rampant illegal immigration of Jews into Palestine.

This was recognized internationally. Some countries, like France, chose to turn a blind eye but there were countries which attempted to minimize illegal Jewish immigration either by government monitoring in their own country or by declining to be involved with countries which did not attempt to minimize the illegal Jewish immigration. The following are some of the countries which stood for what was right:

• Venezuela


• South Africa


• New Zealand


• Honduras


• Greece


• Belgium


• Australia


• + more

To the representatives of each of the countries which attempted to minimize the illegal immigration, you are applauded. Now, how do you act with Israel today as it violates scores of international laws?

To the representatives of each of the countries that chose to do nothing before, do you feel any guilt or see the blood of the Palestinian people on your hands? What can you do today to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel until it abides by law?

The Zionists want to turn Palestine into their homeland and ask every Jew to move there. A country of that size could never support every Jew in the world. The truth had been stated when it was said in the mid 1900s that the solution for Palestine is not a solution for the Jewish problem.

Zionism and Israel are two separate groups: Most Israelis (the most recent polls show upward of 70%) are secular. So when you hear that the Palestine-Israel conflict is religious, know that it is not. It is about politics and power for Israel.

Obligations of a Jewish State in Palestine

Following is a discussion of selected points from the U.N. Partition Plan to create a Jewish and a Palestinian state in 1948.

Obligations of the Jewish state in Palestine include:

• "settling all international disputes in which the State may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered"


• "accepting the obligation of the state to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the U.N."


• "guaranteeing to all persons equal, non-discriminatory rights in civil, political, economic, and religious matters, enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly, and association."

(The Jewish state is what has become Israel today.)

To the first point, international disputes with the Jewish state include at the least those with the Arab countries involved in the 1967 war as well as Lebanon in the 1980s and again more recently. Also included is the continuous conflict with the Palestinian state, also created as a sovereign state in this U.N. plan. These disputes were not settled by peaceful means. They were all settled by military action, and this is how the Jewish state continues to try to settle disputes (i.e. with the Palestinian state). There is no indication of a change in methodology in the near future, either; especially with the election of a hard-line Prime Minister Netanyahu.

So the Jewish state elects to use military force to settle its disputes; however, a state has the right to defend itself if attacked by the opponent first. So the next condition in this point is that the settlement of dispute is to not endanger international peace and security. Well, the violation of peace occurs as soon as military action is taken but the prospect of peace in the future has also been damaged during the Jewish state's disputes. Keeping troops on the borders of neighboring countries when no conflict is occurring and there are no troops of the opposing nation is not a move suggestive of desired peace. Rather, it instigates further conflict. Instigating conflict is detrimental to the security of a state, the Jewish state and others. Even with non-military action like legislative movements, the security of the Palestinians continues to diminish. Corralling people into the tiniest space possible without basic human necessities, let alone basic human rights and freedoms, is not a way to create security. This again is an instigation of conflict, not only between the Jewish and Palestinian states but the Jewish state is creating conditions which instigate civil conflict within the Palestinian state.

To the second point, territorial integrity definitely has been lost by force to the Jewish state. This is most notably the seizure of Palestinian land, which continues today in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and elsewhere. The Jewish state also undermines the political independence of the Palestinian state as it denies entry and exit of diplomats as part of international gatherings.

The violation of the third point is exemplified clearly in the Jewish state's treatment of Palestinians both within the Jewish state's current borders and within the Palestinian state which is occupied by Israel. Discrimination is institutionalized in the court system by giving unreasonably long prison sentences to young Palestinians years after the alleged crime is committed while Jewish settlers within the Palestinian state who agress against the Palestinians are not surpisingly pardoned by the occupying Jewish powers. It is also evident in the granting of permits to Jews for building homes in Jerusalem but not for Palestinians in the same city. The lack of political freedom has already been discussed. There is also no economic freedom for Palestinians as business owners can not operate while the Jewish state holds or denies its shipments of money or goods into and out of Palestine. There is discrimination in religious matters by the Jewish state as well. Israel controls the city of Jerusalem by military force and Palestinian citizens are not allowed to enter to worship at the holy places. Any Jew would be allowed in, though. The basic human rights and freedoms which were mentioned earlier are listed more clearly in this point of the U.N. plan. I will choose just one of these for which I have a definite example: language. Palestinian residents in the current borders of the expanding Jewish state are not allowed to speak Arabic. They can be harrassed, cited, beaten, or worse if a soldier hears them speaking Arabic rather than Hebrew, the Jewish language.

There are more points from the U.N. two-state plan of 1948 that are to be discussed but I will let all of the above sink in for now. The U.N. has created these obligations but what are the consequences of the obligations not being met? This is to where the discussion will lead.

Congress Wants to Support Israel While Our Own Country Is Falling Apart

Written August 17th

The Jerusalem Post printed an article online titled “Congress Votes $37.5m for Arrow-3 Program.” Hilary Leila Krieger wrote:

Israel is on track to receive $37.5 million in US funding in 2010 for the Arrow-3 missile program, despite earlier concerns that America would cancel its funding, and the US Congress is looking to roll back a funding reduction to the David’s Sling shorter-range missile defense system following votes on Capitol Hill this week.

The defense spending bill passed by the House of Representatives on Thursday and the Senate version approved by the Armed Service Committee Friday also call for keeping the F-22 fighter jet production line alive and exploring the possibility of sales to foreign countries.

Israel has long sought the advanced stealth bomber, whose overseas sales are currently banned, and was chagrined when Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that the US would be ending the program this spring. But despite a veto threat from the White House should the planes be in the budget, the Senate and House both added in funding for several more aircraft, a major source of jobs as well as a potential strategic asset.

It is one thing for the United States to give funding to another military force but it is another thing to give $37.5 million of funding. This does not include the unspecified amount given for many other huge contributions to the Israeli military. Annually, the Israeli military receives $2.77 billion from the U.S. This amount increased recently thanks to President Obama. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate voted to increase the allocation for the shorter-range David’s Sling program from $45.8 million to $72.9 million; that is an extra $27.1 million for short-range missile defense. That will all be delivered this year. Of what significance is short-range missile defense for the Israeli military? Within short range is Palestine, which is already devastated after more than 60 years of occupation and the recently heightened aggression and genocide against it. The missile attacks launched by Palestinians are homemade rockets which rarely land in populated areas or cause any injuries or casualties. During the Gaza massacre of December and January, only four Israelis were injured by these rockets while 1,400 Palestinians lost their lives at the hands of the Israeli military. The magnitude of the short-range missile defense buildup is not necessary. At a time of such economic hardship in the U.S. and with the national deficit expected to reach its largest amount ever, this much money could be put to a much better use. The American government’s first responsibility is to take care of Americans, not to support an internationally-recognized criminal entity. The fiduciary responsibility of the United States is owed to its citizens, and legislators are currently being irresponsible with our tax money and abandoning us when we need it most.

It would be interesting to know what motivation could have been given to U.S. legislators to pass a defense spending bill with these allocations in it. For such a cost to be distributed amongst the American people there must have been a larger benefit for the people; we should hope that our representatives would be as logical, at least. So what benefit does the United States gain by these particular actions? Is it something that the general population of citizens will benefit from or just a few groups of people in government positions or anyone at all?

If the stealth bomber is banned from being sold overseas, there must be a reason. Defense Secretary Gates “announced he didn’t support it.” The opinion of an official in a position of influence so high in the United States’ chain of command is worthy of consideration. Concurrently, why is it considerable for Israel to be exempted from a global rule? The United States has a history of favoring and being a yes man for Israel and it is time that the U.S. begins treating the citizens of the world by the founding principles of America, including that all men are created equal and have the right to pursue basic human liberties. By funding the Israeli military, America is encouraging more racism against Palestinians and fears of attacks upon other countries like Lebanon and Iran and hindering these people (and more) from enjoying life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness.

Krieger also says the Israeli military is “busy selling military hardware all over the planet.” For there to be customers of the Israeli military, there must be a worthwhile product. So the Israeli military has technology sophisticated enough to sell but still needs the United States to support it? It is also making money from the technology that is either funded or directly provided by the U.S. America could help itself by selling its own technology rather than giving it away.

As much money as the United States has been giving, is now giving, and will continue to give to Israelis and their military, it will never be enough for the Israelis. The amount allocated continuously increases, even while the economy in the U.S. was worsening at an increasing rate. For the Arrow-3 program, Israelis were hoping to get approximately $150 million rather than the $37.5 million. It has been noted in other sources that the U.S. pays more per Israeli capita than it does per American capita. Does that seem fair or responsible? Does America have any limit to how much money it will give away?

The supportive votes in the United States’ legislature are accompanied by the statement from the House Foreign Affairs Committee noting “its support for ‘complete accelerated co-production of Arrow missiles’ as well as calling for a report on the subject.’” Why is the U.S. supporting not only missile production but accelerated production? Again, the Israelis are clearly in military control of Palestine and have no significant threat of attack against them. Thus, a rapid missile buildup suggests further planned aggression. Why accelerate aid to international criminals when there is such difficulty accelerating the U.S. economy? It is interesting that the American legislators vote to support a foreign military program and then ask “for a report on the subject.” Voters are supposed to be educated on a subject before voting on it. When the U.S. realizes after the fact that its money is being used for crimes against humanity and that it is abandoning its own people, there will be no way to reverse the damage done.

The actions of the United States are intended to “maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge and other assurances regarding the security of Israel, according to [Foreign Affairs] committee staff.” What are the assurances other than military might? They must include economic superiority, social, and cultural superiority. Israel has succeeded in all of these areas as they strangle the life out of the Palestinian people. Why is the U.S. so dedicated to maintaining a foreign country’s “qualitative military edge”? Other allies of America do not get the same treatment and as stated earlier, the Israeli military is not in dire need of such preferential treatment as it is plenty capable of securing itself.

Representative Pete Sessions, a Republican from Texas, states what many others would agree with: “It is the sense of Congress that Israel has the inalienable right to defend itself in the face of an imminent nuclear or military threat from Iran…” Many political advisors, experts, and foreign culture experts have explained the imminent nuclear threat from Iran to be harmless. An imminent threat is not the same as an imminent action. What evidence is there of an imminent action or even certain nuclear weaponry capability of Iran?
A final statement is that the U.S. is breaking its own ethics code and laws by providing weapons, military aid, and other forms of support to a country which uses all of the above in violation of international law, especially including human rights. What is the point of having laws which are broken by those who are entrusted to uphold them?

How American Lawmakers Feel

It is disappointing to see that the representatives that we elect into legislative positions in the United States are opposed to equality for all, one of the basic principles this country stands for.

When George Mitchell was appointed as the Middle East Envoy, the response from some influential individuals were similar to the following:

"One prominent Jewish community leader objected to Mitchell because he would be too 'fair.'"

"Right-wing Christian Zionist Gary Bauer said Mitchell is too 'even-handed.'"

How can being fair be a bad thing? It ensures the optimal outcome for all parties. It is only bad when one party is being greedy or feels that its desires are unjustified and will not be supported by a majority of others. In the land of democracy and the country which wishes to spread democracy throughout the world, the majority rules. Americans who represent us should not be working against the system. This is an example of corruption in our government. However, corruption in the United States does not affect only the United States. Due to the global power of this country, corruption in the United States affects a majority of the countries in the world. Unfortunately, the majority does not get to rule in this case.

Take this as a reminder to be educated about the representatives you vote for. If you don't vote, get educated and then vote because I believe the majority of voters are uneducated about who they are electing. If democracy is worth anything to you, exercise your right and make the trouble of those who fight for democracy be not in vain.

Discussion of U.N. Report Regarding Israeli Offensive on Gaza

Stories have been relayed from U.N. officers like the Secretary General's Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict:

"In one, she said, Israeli soldiers shot a father after ordering him out of his house and then opened fire into the room where the rest of the family was sheltering, wounding the mother and three brothers and killing a fourth.

In another, on January 15, at Tal al Hawa south-west of Gaza City, Israeli soldiers forced an 11-year-old boy to walk in front of them for several hours as they moved through the town, even after they had been shot at."

The first story is one of torture and terrorism. What justification can there be for spraying bullets into a small room of a few unarmed family members? Why would they need to shoot a man who they detained? To have been removed from the situation and been outnumbered by soldiers, he could not have posed a significant threat to anyone. Even if accused of a crime, don't all people deserve the right to a trial and to defend themselves? This is an abuse of force. Imagine if police officers in America were allowed to shoot suspects after they are detained.

Regarding the second story, it is a crime to use human shields but it is elevated to another level of criminality when the human is merely a child. I dare anyone to defend this action to me.

"Palestinian officials say 1,434 people in Gaza -- 960 of them civilians -- were killed in the fighting, a figure Israel contests. The report from the nine gave the total as 1,440, saying of these 431 were children and 114 women.

The overall report was criticized in the 47-nation Council by Israel's ambassador Aharon Leshno Yar, who said it "wilfully ignores and downplays the terrorist and other threats we face," and the use by Hamas of human shields.

Leshno Yar said the 43-page document was part of a pattern of "demonizing Israel" in the Council -- where an informal bloc of Islamic and African nations usually backed by Russia, China and Cuba has a built-in majority."

So, Israel thinks the Palestinian death toll was inflated. The U.N. says it was slightly underestimated. Which of the three entities has the most non-biased opinion in the Palestine-Israeli conflict: Palestine, Israel, or the United Nations?

Israel is playing the victim again. "Yeah, we killed 1,440 people in three weeks but we had a reason. We were threatened." Threatened by homemade bombs that rarely strike populated areas and by defenseless refugees who are landlocked and deprived of food, healthcare, and even jobs? Even if a threat was present, it was not significant enough to warrant the actions of Israel's "Defense" Force. The death toll of Israelis during the conflict was close to only 1% of the number of Palestinians who lost their lives. Can you say disproportionate? However, since Israel and its "most moral army in the world" is being discredited, it is being "demonized" by a leading international organization. Yes, that's right, Israel, the whole world is out to get you. If you were really that afraid of it, then why not stop what you are being accused of? End the illegal occupation, the genocide, and the violation of scores of U.N. resolutions, and the world will let you be.

"Another report presented to the Council on Monday came from Robert Falk, a U.S. academic and the body's special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Falk, whom Israel barred from entry last year after accusing him of bias and prejudice, said Israel had subjected civilians in Gaza to 'an inhuman form of warfare that kills, maims and inflicts mental harm.'"

Israel and America are forever conjoined in foreign policy, right? Israel will criticize American officials, though; when the American criticizes Israel. So much for a professional, respectful relationship which exhibits maturity. This should signal to the U.S. that Israel can cause trouble for the U.S. if interests conflict. America is setting itself up for opposition and hatred around the world due, in part, to this government's undying devotion to an entity recognized worldwide as a racist nation (a.k.a. Israel, in reference to the U.N. statement that Zionism is racism). While America is sacrificing national security and good relations with other countries, Israel could cut ties at the first sight of disagreement. Most people familiar with the situation would contest that Israel would never do such a thing because it relies too heavily upon American support. However, most people are not familiar with the way American citizens are treated by the Israeli authority. I am not only referring to Palestinian Americans who go to visit their families, but I also mean non-Palestinian Americans who go to stand up for human rights in Palestine (like Rachel Corrie who I remembered as the sixth anniversary of her murder by the I."D".F. passed recently in a post below).

To read the full article from Reuters on Yahoo! News, follow this link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090323/wl_nm/us_un_rights_israel_1

Israel even pops the balloons of Palestinian children?

There is no negotiation by Israelis with Palestinians. It is clear that Israelis will simply use force to get what they want. Israelis undermine the hope for peace with every chance they get. Israelis are even trying to take Arab culture away and say that it is not allowed. Know that you can not take a people's culture from them. Actions like this inspire the rest of a people to celebrate their culture more. If trying to illegitimize every aspect of a people is not a sign of genocide or ethnic cleansing, I don't know what is. Read the excerpt of the report from an AP writer: (The link to read the rest of the story is also below.)

"Israeli authorities broke up a series of Palestinian cultural events in Jerusalem on Saturday, disrupting a children's march and bursting balloons at a schoolyard celebration in a crackdown that underscored the emotional battle over control of the disputed holy city.

Elsewhere in Jerusalem, hundreds of Israelis gathered outside the residence of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to mark the 1,000th day in captivity of an Israeli soldier held by Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip. The demonstration took place at a protest tent set up by the soldier's family, and many in the crowd quietly waved yellow glow sticks in a show of solidarity.

Palestinian activists called for Saturday's celebrations to mark the Arab League's designation of Jerusalem as the capital of Arab culture for 2009. The 23-nation group chooses a different city for the honor each year.

But Israel said the events violated a ban on Palestinian political activity in Jerusalem. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas criticized the crackdown.

Announcing the ban on Saturday's events, Israel's internal security minister, Avi Dichter, accused Abbas' Palestinian Authority of being behind the activities. Israel does not allow the Palestinian government to have a presence in Jerusalem, saying it undercuts Israel's claim to the city."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090321/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians_18

The Wisdom of Ghandi

"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and in-human to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home. The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred. The Jews born in France are French in precisely the same sense that Christians born in France are French. If the Jews have no home but Palestine, will they relish the idea of being forced to leave the other parts of the world in which they are settled? Or do they want a double home where they can remain at will? This cry for the national home affords a colourable justification for the German expulsion of the Jews.....And now a word to the Jews in Palestine. I have no doubt that they are going about it the wrong way. The Palestine of the Biblical conception is not a geographical tract. It is in their hearts. But if they must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs. They should seek to convert the Arab heart...." Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi (November 1938)

Action is the best antidote to despair. Action is the best tool for a healthy living in unjust circumstances.

Taken from a letter by Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh in Palestine.

Celebrate and Remember Rachel Corrie

Did you know that the Israeli military ran an American student over and killed her with a bulldozer?

A young American girl became known around the world while standing for what was right.

March 16th, 2009 is the 6th anniversary of Rachel Corrie's death. She was murdered by an Israeli soldier driving a Caterpillar D9 bulldozer while nonviolently trying to protect the home of a Palestinian doctor in 2003. Learn more about Rachel's life and how you can get involved in keeping her legacy alive by clicking the following link: http://www.endtheoccupation.org/article.php?list=type&type=270. Thanks for taking the time to learn more about the life of this beautiful, young, U.S. peace activist.