NBC is doing a spread about the 14 year old "Palestinian" American citizen who was killed by the Israel Defense Forces. Why was he killed? It wasn't random, he was throwing molotov cocktails at Israeli cars - an act that could potentially wound and murder innocents. His father denies his actions and says "and he's a kid." In the US, 14 years old "kids" have been charged as adults for murder. Kids who are attempting to murder need to be stopped, even by lethal force. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
What is even more ridiculous is that NBC is making an absurd and disgusting comparison.
Palestinian-American Orwah had been shot dead in a confrontation with Israeli forces in his hometown of Silwad, the second U.S. child to die in unrest which boiled over last week. On Wednesday, a Palestinian man plowed into a crowd at a transit stop, killing a three-month-old Israeli-American baby. A 22-year-old tourist from Ecuador later died from her injuries in that attack.
NBC is comparing the death of this "kid" to another child - a three month girl who was intentionally attacked by a terrorist who plowed his car into her carriage and into a crowd waiting for transportation. A pure innocent, whose parents waited years for her arrival.
Is there any comparison to be made here? No comparison whatsoever. A long-awaited baby versus someone doing his best to murder others. There's something wrong with this picture.
What subjective, moral equivalency garbage is NBC spewing?
This idea is being floated and is a very scary thought for anybody who cares about the State of Israel. Samantha Power is known as a powerful advocate in the Obama Administration for military intervention when genocide may be occurring or about to occur. But what about her ideas about Israel? Is Israel committing "genocide" against the Palestinians?
We find her thoughts clearly articulated in an interview with the Institute of International Studies at UC Berkeley in April 2002.
Power: I don't think that in any of the cases, a shortage of information is the problem. I actually think in the Palestine - Israel situation, there's an abundance of information. What we don't need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing -- or investing, I think, more than sacrificing -- billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel's military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you're serious, you have to put something on the line.
Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It's a terrible thing to do, it's fundamentally undemocratic …. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention, which, very much like the Rwanda scenario, that thought experiment, if we had intervened early.... Any intervention is going to come under fierce criticism. But we have to think about lesser evils, especially when the human stakes are becoming ever more pronounced. [emphasis added]
Power has been deeply involved in the United States military involvement in Libya on humanitarian grounds. Knowing that she believes that intervention is a real option - and believes that the Palestinians are under threat of genocide... what keeps Power, as Secretary of State, from suggesting to a possible second Obama administration that the Palestinians need United States protection from Israel?
Is this a far fetched idea? I don't believe so.
This September the United Nations, the same body that spends more time condemning the democratic State of Israel than any other country, may be voting to welcome the new State of Palestine into the family of nations. This new state would include Gaza, Judea/Samaria (the West Bank) and East Jerusalem as its capital.
Considering that Gaza is run by Hamas, an established and known terrorist organization that targets civilians in Israel daily and the Palestinian Authority running the West Bank continues to honor the "martyrs" that have murdered Jews and giving financial support to their families - it's a wonder how their application to the UN can possibly be taken seriously.
While their application is a wonder to most of us - it will not be laughed out of the General Assembly. In fact, it will most probably be voted on and the State of Palestine will come into being. What will happen next is a worry. Since Israel is "occupying" most of the new state - what will the World do to rectify the situation? Delegitimize Israel like they did to South Africa some years ago? Levy sanctions? Send United Nations military forces? We don't know.
What do we know? * We know that Hillary Clinton will not serve as President Obama's Secretary of State in a possible second presidential term. * We know that Samantha Power has President Obama's ear when dealing with foreign affairs. * We know that Samantha Power believes that a genocide is being perpetrated against the Palestinians. * We know that President Obama has a history of pro-Palestinian positions and having pro-Palestinian advisors.
It shouldn't be a surprise to us come September if we see a future Secretary of State Powers pushing for admission of the new State of Palestine into the United Nations.
Everyone who cares about Israel and her security must contact their senator and let them know that the United States should not impose any peace "solution" on Israel and must not confirm Samantha Power as Secretary of State in a possible Obama second term. The Middle East is not the middle west - and while we in the United States and other democratic countries assume that everyone wants the same thing - real peace - true peace must come from those involved in the conflict. We have yet to see the Palestinians do anything other than attack the civilian population in Israel. Real peace is unfortunately far off - to impose a solution, especially on a democratic nation, is a dangerous precedent for anyone who believes in the rule of law and the legitimacy of a people to elect their leaders to represent them. We must not let this happen.
It's being reported that Mideast "peace" talks are being suspended by Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority. The reason being given is that Israel will not extent its settlement building freeze. Mind you, these "settlements" are those that would be included in Israel "proper" if an Arab state is established on the lands of Judea/Samaria (aka West Bank).
Instead, the PA is thinking about opening talks with the well established terrorist organization Hamas in the Gaza Strip. If the Palestinians are supposed to be the "moderates" and Hamas are the "extremists" what does this tell us?
Are the "moderates" of the Palestinian Authority and the "extremists" of Hamas different than each other? In what way? Hamas is clear - Israel must be destroyed. The PA claims it only wants a state. Is the creation of another Arab state just a stepping stone toward the destruction of Israel?
Looking at the Palestinian Authority's revised charter we have to wonder if anything has really changed. While the terms "Israel", "Zionist" and other similar words are no longer included in the charter - it begins with these statements:
Revolution is our path to freedom, independence, and construction
It is a revolution until victory
It goes on to say:
This internal charter has been adopted within the framework of adherence to the provisions of the Basic Charter.
In reality, this "new" Palestinian Charter is an addendum to the Basic Charter - which includes the destruction of Israel.
Article (19) Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.
How is this different from from the new charter?
You must prepare yourself to inspire the spirit of organized revolutionary work in every Arab soul that is sincere to Palestine and that believes in its liberation. Let us train ourselves to be patient and to face ordeals, bear calamities, sacrifice our souls, blood, time and effort.
Fatah is the armed wing of the Palestinian Authority. We see what their interests are by their symbol.
Their background includes a map of the whole of Israel - not the so called West Bank or just the Gaza Strip. Of course the additions of the machine guns and a grenade are nice touches.
The Hamas charter is not much different from the PA Basic Charter.
The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.... There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad.... "I swear by the holder of Mohammed's soul that I would like to invade and be killed for the sake of Allah, then invade and be killed, and then invade again and be killed." (As related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).
Take a look at the Hamas flag.
Compare the Hamas and the PA flags - both have the whole of Israel on their flags. Both believe that "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free". Both believe in jihad and "liberation" through the murder of Jews.
Tell me again what differentiates the "moderates" from the "extremists" exactly?
