Suspend U.S. Arms to Israel - Amnesty International

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

Just received this from AI.

Dear Michael,

Late last week, tanks rolled into parts of Gaza as Israel stepped up Operation 'Protective Edge'. Since the current military offensive began, at least 375 Palestinians have been killed, 83 of them children*.

Thousands of homes have been destroyed and families have been displaced. More than half the population of Gaza is without water, compounding the misery of civilians already suffering due to the ongoing blockade.

With the ground invasion, the number of civilian casualties and the destruction of Gaza's already crippled infrastructure has increased. It is time to act.

Call on the U.S. Government to stop giving arms to Israel.

The Israeli army has been deliberately targeting civilian homes it claims belong to families of Hamas operatives. In several cases, however, no evidence has emerged that 'Hamas operatives' were in the houses at the time, or that the homes were being used for military purposes.

Meanwhile, two Israelis have been killed and scores injured amid indiscriminate rocket fire by Palestinian armed groups.

Indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks against civilians are prohibited under international law. Yet there's a risk arms from the U.S. are facilitating such war crimes.

The U.S. is by far the largest exporter of military, security and policing equipment to Israel. The U.S. gives over $3 billion in annual "Foreign Military Financing" to Israel alone. As long as there is a substantial risk these arms will be used to commit the violations we're seeing now, all arms supplies to Israel must stop. The same is true for those supplying Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups.

[earthside]

1. No can do.

Way, way too much campaign money at stake to do something for peace like suspending arms shipments to Israel.

[yeoman6987]

2. Israel needs those to save themselves from Hamas.

If anything, we need to double our aide to Israel immediately. The are fighting for survival and need all the help they can get.

[HooptieWagon]

3. If only Israel hadn't stolen Palestinian land...

and forced them into what for all purposes amounts to a ghetto, then the Palestinians wouldn't be forced to fight back for their survival. Israel has been the aggressor here, for 65+ years or so. Their own policies have led to the current situation, which threatens Jews all over the world.

[yeoman6987]

5. You know what

You said it yourself. 65 years ago. The majority of Israeli's were not even born then and neither were the Palestinians for that matter. Israel has done pretty well for themselves considering that 65 years ago they were being killed by the millions. I am just so proud of how the Israeli's have turned out. Bravo for them. It stinks that they have to protect themselves every minute, but I just hope that they continue and thank goodness that America has their back.....100 Senators! Love everyone one of the votes. The President! I could not be more proud of him!

[HooptieWagon]

13. Success comes rather easy for the side armed by US vs. rock-throwing.

I suppose you also cheered for the Dutch and British stealing South Africa from African tribes armed with spears? Or perhaps you cheered for the US Army stealing Native American land and forcing them on to reservations? Yaaaayyy Genocide, go, go, go!

[leftynyc]

18. Don't blame Israel for the fact

that hundreds of millions of dollars meant to better the lives of Palestinians were spent on weapons and rockets and the tunnels to hide them in. Blame the Palestinian "leaders" who only enriched themselves.

[HooptieWagon]

20. I blame Israel for stealing Palestinian land...

... and imprisoning millions of them crammed into a Detroit-sized concentration camp. They aren't free to leave. There aren't resources enough to survive. Aid is blocked by an Israeli blockade. I do not blame Palestinians for fighting back.... it is a natural human response.

[leftynyc]

21. They were offered a country in 1948

and several times since. The population in Gaza decided to vote in a terrorist group instead. The PA has also squandered hundreds of millions of dollars meant to better their lives but decided weapons and paying the families of martyrs were more important. But you wish to place ALL the blame on Israel which makes you impossible for me to take seriously.

[HooptieWagon]

25. No. Half their country was stolen by the UN.

Israel stole much in 1948, and has been stealing the remainder since. Claiming the Palestinians were "offered a deal", is like claiming the US Indians were "offered a deal" to live on a tiny squalid reservation. Such "deals", offered on the barrel of a gun, aren't destined to be long-lived. Most often, the side "offering the deal" decides they want more.

[leftynyc]

26. Take it up with the UN

The Israeli's stole nothing. The Palestinians long ago decided they didn't want a state. They want to destroy Israel PERIOD. How's that working out for them?

[HooptieWagon]

28. Illustration:

[leftynyc]

31. An illustration with no sourcing information

Interesting. Now how about the topic at hand? Stealing is a loaded word that has no basis in reality in this situation. Want to change the subject again?

[EX500rider]

37. Map's a load of BS..

In the 1946 Map it was ALL British territory who got it from the Turks.

Map 2 is the plan the Palestinians rejected for war.

In map 3 the green areas were all occupied by Egypt and Jordan, not Palestine.

[HooptieWagon]

39. The British were the colonial govt. in 46.

The land wasn't owned by the British. Palestinian families owned the land. They were forced off to create a state for Israel. That created almost a million refugees streaming into neighboring countries, which was the cause of the 48 war.

[EX500rider]

50. Locals owned some of the land..

....some of the locals were Muslims, some were Jewish.

[Hippo_Tron]

59. Nobody would've been forced from their homes if Egypt, Syria, and Jordan hadn't attacked

Nothing in the partition said "all Arabs must leave the Israel section of the partition". Legally they had the option to stay as citizens of Israel.

[EX500rider]

34. What "country" did the Palestinians have pre1948?

What was the capital?
Who was the president?
What was the form of government?
How big was their military?
What form of currency?

[HooptieWagon]

43. What country did Americans have when they were a British colony?

No Americans owned property then? Britain acquired Palestine as a colony upon the breakup of the Ottoman Empire following WW1. They had been trying to get it for several decades. Palestians had lived there and owned the land for millenia. Yes, there was a Jewish population, and Christians, too. They all owned land and got along peaceably. It was taking 50% of the land by the UN to create a state for Israel that started the problem.
Suppose the UN decided the solution to overpopulation in India was to seize 50% of US to create a state for Indian immigrants. Do you think Americans owning that land would object?

[EX500rider]

51. Nobody was taking anybodies land until the Arabs started the war of '48

[HooptieWagon]

55. The UN took half of the Palestinian's land in 1947.

The land the State of Israel was created from wasn't dredged up from the ocean. It was taken from Palestinian landowners. And Israel has been stealing more ever since.

[EX500rider]

57. that just established borders, it didn't "take" land from anyone

[HooptieWagon]

58. So you think Palestinians crammed themselves into an area the size of Detroit...

... by choice? No one took their land? My, you're awfully gullible for RW propaganda.

[EX500rider]

64. After they attacked the Jews in '48 they got booted

[HooptieWagon]

65. Then explain the 1 million refugees in '47.

Looking forward to more of your colorfull rewriting of history.

[EX500rider]

67. Not as colorful as yours! What "million refugees" in '47?

The Jewish Agency, which was the recognized representative of the Jewish community, accepted the plan, but the Arab League and Arab Higher Committee of Palestine rejected it. On 1 December 1947, the Arab Higher Committee proclaimed a three-day strike, and Arab bands began attacking Jewish targets. The Jews were initially on the defensive as civil war broke out, but gradually moved onto the offensive. The Palestinian Arab economy collapsed and 250,000 Palestinian-Arabs fled or were expelled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Zionism_and_the_British_mandate

Shouldn't start fights you're going to lose.

[bravenak]

60. Israel is STILL taking land.

They are called 'settlements'.

[sulphurdunn]

44. Bravo for them?

I guess we all need to learn that Israeli children are precious in the eyes of God, but Palestinian children are not. Is that right? You're proud of the US Senate for helping Israel continually assert that, year after year and decade after decade?

[awoke_in_2003]

68. Palestinian land loss

did not stop 65 year's ago

[whistler162]

45. Sorry but you know

after being kicked out of the area 1500+ years ago and just after nearly being exterminated in Europe. There where a few Jewish people who wanted to return to their ancestral lands and maybe get a little security. Silly people they should have just let old Adolf and his thugs have their way.

[HooptieWagon]

48. Actually, no.

There were many attempts to get Jews to emmigrate from Europe from the middle ages on. They weren't interested. Zionism was a concoction of British conservative imperialists (not Jews) in the mid 19th Century as an attempt to create a colony there loyal to England. At the time, European Jews preferred to emmigrate to the US. Many did. And some that tried emmigrating to Palestine gave up, and emmigrated to the US. Even after England obtained Palestine, and the Balfour Declaration gave a thin legitimacy to Zionism, very few Jews were interested in emmigrating to Palestine. Only after the UN seized half of Palestine land from Palestinian families and offered FREE LAND! to Jews was there significant emmigration.

[earthside]

4. That's rather farfetched.

As far as I know, neither Hamas in the Gaza nor the PA on the West Bank have a military.
The Hamas rockets have been entirely ineffective as weapons -- so how in the world are two million poor people caged inside a 139 square mile area a threat to Israel's survival?

As the death toll indicates, for the IDF in Gaza it is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Israel is never going to break out of this cycle of repressing the indigenous non-Jewish inhabitants of Israel as long as the U.S. keeps mainlining it weapons and the politicians in this country keep ratcheting-up the de-humanization of the Palestinians.

Bigger picture is that this oppression and violence is going to have a bad end for Israel ... as they say, you can't defeat a birthrate and sometime in the future the Israelis are going to start a counterinsurgency campaign that they are going to lose.

Today, the Palestinians are not an existential threat to Israel, indeed, Israel's addiction to the military option is its own greatest enemy. In the distant future, well, Israel may need to worry about what will become of it, but it will be because of unwise decisions it is making now.

[yeoman6987]

29. It is such difficult situation

I guess I feel for the Israeli's because they were shunned by every country in the 40's. I don't think they necessarily wanted to take land from anyone, but the UN said, "this is where you are going" which ended up being Israel. Israel asked many countries to let them have a home and were turned away by every one of them. If the UN had not stepped in, they still would be wandering around trying to find a permanent home. And don't forget this was immediately after they were put in concentration camps for years and years so they were very weak and not extremely healthy so all the walking they had to do to find permanence and being turned away was NOT good. What were the options? Is the UN responsible at all?

[sulphurdunn]

47. There were no Israelis

until 1948. To have created a new nation on this planet in 1948 necessitated taking land from someone. The Zionist movement never pushed for Jewish homeland anywhere but Palestine, and that's what it got. The world and many Americans, including Jews have demanded that Israel remove itself from land not ceded in 1948. Is that somehow unjust? Also, as horrible as the Holocaust was, it does not give its descendants the right to abuse and oppress others.

[HooptieWagon]

52. As late as 1885...

The Conference of Rabbis declared "We are not a nation, we are a religion". Taking land from its then current ownership by Palestinian families to create a nation for the jewish religion makes no more sense than to do so to create a nation for the Catholic religion.

[Hippo_Tron]

56. There would be no Israel if the US had told holocaust refugees they could live in Montana

Yes, there was a movement of Jews in British controlled Palestine who wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine. But that state would've never been viable if the Allies hadn't decided to solve the holocaust refugee problem by saying lets dump them in the undeveloped swamps and deserts of Palestine. Not a chance in hell millions of European Jews would've moved there if the US, the British, and the French had taken them in.

[sulphurdunn]

71. The Zionist movement

and its calls for a Jewish state in the former lands of Israel predate the the Holocaust by nearly a century. Palestine and the US were the primary destinations of Holocaust survivors. Forty-three percent of all Jews live in Israel. Forty-percent live in the US. The UK and France rank 3rd and 4th globally with a combined Jewish population of six-percent. They much preferred New York and New Jersey to Montana, although I don't know why.

[Hippo_Tron]

72. There were immigration quotas that severely limited refugees in the years following the war

Eventually these were loosened but only years after the end of the war.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007094

If the immigration quotas had been loosened the moment that Germany surrendered, there would likely be no state of Israel. The Jewish population in Palestine wasn't sufficient to sustain it and people weren't exactly giddy about moving there.

The vast majority of people given a choice between the United States and Palestine would've picked the United States. Palestine was desert in the south and malaria infested swamp in the north. It's the kind of place that only seems attractive if you're living in a refugee camp and have nowhere else to go.

[Hippo_Tron]

62. The situation changed drastically after 1973

As far as history is concerned, I generally sympathize with most of what the Israelis did through their victory in the Yom-Kippur War. But after that, Nasser was finished, and Syria, Jordan, and Egypt gave up on their goal of trying to conquer Israel. This is also about the time period when Israel acquired nuclear weapons, pretty much guaranteeing their survival.

At this point, Israel should've turned immediately to the question of how to end their occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. But they held on to it for another two decades before they gave any serious consideration to Palestinian statehood with the Oslo accords.

The shit they're dealing with now is a direct result of that. You can't have an indefinite occupation of territory along your borders and expect it not to come back to bite you in the ass.

[DanTex]

6. Yes, because Israel obviously can't survive without bombing hospitals and children on the beach.

And the ratio of Palestinian to Israeli casualties is getting dangerously low -- something like 30-1 I think.

Send more weapons!

[yeoman6987]

7. Israel cannot survive without protecting themselves....you are correct 100 percent!

Thanks for the Post! Long live Israel!!!!!

[DanTex]

8. Oops. I thought you were serious.

My mistake.

For the record, my post was sarcasm. I don't actually think that killing children and bombing hospitals is necessary for Israel's survival.

[yeoman6987]

9. I am! You are on the wrong side of history on this one.....even mostDemocrats are on Israel's side.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025270958

[DanTex]

10. Somehow I don't think that being opposed to killing children and bombing hospitals is

the "wrong side of history".

Also, I don't see it as being on "Israel's side" or "Palestine's side". I'm on the side of peace and of less killing.

[yeoman6987]

11. I see it as saving Israel which has been treated with disdain by many countries in the middle east

Some even want them off our Planet if you could believe that. Try living with that and see how you would react. Seriously this is a life and death situation for Israel. I hope you think about it and reconsider your beliefs on this one thing......you are incredible on so many issues that I have discussed with you over time, but this one we look at differently and have a difference of opinion which is so unusual...lol. Regardless this region has been fighting since the beginning of time and unfortunately I don't see any let up in the near future.

[DanTex]

14. I would hope that I wouldn't react with the same level as violence as Israel has.

I don't believe that the policies that the Israeli government has engaged in -- the level of violence we are seeing now in Gaza, and the inevitable civilian casualties that accompany them, and also the expanding of settlements -- are necessary for the continued survival of Israel. In fact, I don't even think they are helpful towards the continued survival of Israel.

Are there people who want to destroy Israel? Yes. But that doesn't justify everything that the Israeli government does. You can't just say, well, these people want to kill us, so that gives us the right to do whatever the hell we want.

[yeoman6987]

27. One thing I will admit is that I have not watched any TV in the last week

so the only news I have received in DU which of course is an excellent source but I don't really get the visual aspect of it.

[bravenak]

30. You need the look.

I know you feel very protective of Israel, but you need to SEE for your self what they are doing. Children with their faces blown off, disabled people lying in the rubble of a hospital, mothers lying dead in the street with their children, dead babies wrapped in gold cloth by the dozens. Most of the dead are civilians.

You would never shoot a child to get to a missile. You would not. I can tell. You would never drop a bomb on a hospital full of already injured people with nowhere to run. You would not make hundreds of mistakes in a 'precision' exercise and drop bombs on people who cannot get away.

Go take a look at the dead.

[yeoman6987]

32. I will this evening

It has been kinda unfair of me to spout my opinion without really knowing or seeing the situation. Thanks for the post!

[magical thyme]

42. here are some links, videos and pix. WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES

"A soft plea. Daddy, don't leave me."

Video: A beautiful brother went looking for his family in the death zone (Updated)
Shajiya – There was a ceasefire today for 3 hours – so some of us internationals went to the area which I refer to as the ‘Death Zone’ – Shajiya, we went to see if we could help with the masses of injured amongst the rubble.

The Death Zone is unlike any destruction I have seen in my life – there is no place left without bombing, shelling or sniper shots. Total devastation.

We reached and there was a beautiful brother who was looking for his family. Doing our job, we made the decision collectively to help find the brother’s family amongst the annihilation.
http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/beautiful-brother-looking.html/comment-page-1

4 Children killed on Gaza beach bombed by Israeli navy



Israel Bombs Gaza’s Only Rehab Hospital: Staff Forced to Evacuate Paralyzed Patients After Shelling
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/18/israel_bombs_gazas_only_rehab_hospital

Four dead after Israel bomb Gaza hospital
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/10981025/Four-dead-after-Israel-bomb-Gaza-hospital.html

Gaza hospital hit in fatal Israeli attack as foreign leaders arrive in region – live updates
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/21/gaza-crisis-unsc-and-obama-call-for-immediate-ceasefire-live-updates

[DanTex]

35. How do you feel about the expanding of settlements?

I don't see any justification for expanding settlements. To be honest, I don't really buy the argument that Israel needs to keep up the occupation and the de facto apartheid because if they didn't then the Palestinians would destroy them, but at least that's a plausible argument. But, as far as settlements, I don't see even a plausible argument.

The general problem with the I/P conflict is that in order to absolve the Israeli government of moral blame, you have to take their word on a lot of things. You have to believe, for example, that the amount of damage that IDF is inflicting on Gaza is actually necessary to keep Israel safe. The only way to really know this is to have detailed military information. I can say that it sure seems both excessive and also ultimately counterproductive in that it will breed more animosity and support for extremists and terrorists. That's my instinct, but I don't really know for sure. But, if I'm going to believe the Israeli government is behaving ethically here, then I'm simply going to have to take their word for it, because I can't verify what they are saying.

Same goes more generally for the occupation/blockade. Again, it doesn't seem to me that the only option that Israel has for survival is to subjugate the Palestinian population and impose basically an apartheid state for what looks to be a very long time. Israel says that this is the only way. Do I take their word for it?

The thing is, I don't trust the Israeli government that much. First of all, I don't know if there's any government that I would really trust this much. Governments do bad things and lie about it. Especially when there are wars.

On top of that, there are things like the settlements that I can see no plausible justification for, even if I am extremely generous in terms of giving them the benefit of the doubt. So that's more reason for suspicion. And then there's the fact that the people in control of the Israeli government at the moment are right-wingers. These are the Dick Cheneys of Israel.

If Dick Cheney says that such-and-such war is for necessary and is for the greater good of humanity, I'm going to be pretty skeptical. Same goes for Netanyahu.

[Hippo_Tron]

63. Here's the thing, lets say they give the Palestinians complete sovereignty tomorrow...

We'll ignore the fact that Hamas and the PLO are basically in the midst of a Civil War and pretend that there is a universally accepted provisional government to whom they would turn over sovereignty.

Can we assume that there would be absolutely no hostile actions from anyone in the new Palestinian state against Israel? If we can't assume this then the question becomes, what level of hostile action constitutes an act of war? Because once an act of war is committed, then Israel could find itself having to invade that Palestinian state that it just gave sovereignty to and take it over again.

I'm not posing this as an argument, I'm just wondering what your thoughts are. IMO, if there is ever going to be peace, Israel will probably have to tolerate some level of violence from that new Palestinian state and give the new government time to quell that violence before it invades.

In that same vein, I think the effectiveness of the Iron Dome makes it very difficult to justify the current invasion.

[DanTex]

66. Yes, that is the thing. I have the same questions as you.

It's probably safe to assume that the Palestinian population as a whole would be less anti-Israel if the occupation ended, but it's also safe to assume that there are enough Palestinians who violently hate Israel and would want to continue committing acts of terrorism until Israel disappears off the map.

Honestly, I have no idea what would happen if they gave complete sovereignty tomorrow, as you point out the PLO and Hamas don't even get along, so who would the government even be? I don't think that the Palestinian government or it's army would invade Israel -- that would be dumb -- but it's naive to think there wouldn't be acts of violence against Israelis from individuals and organizations within the new state.

I definitely don't think it's as simple as if Israel would end the occupation and settlements, then the Palestinians would suddenly leave them alone. At the same time, I still think Israel should stop building settlements and stop making life so miserable for the Palestinians. And it really seems that the level of violence and civilian casualties in this latest Gaza offensive is way disproportionate to the threat they are defending themselves from.

[RedstDem]

70. i feel like I need to take a shower after reading your posts

Scary, wish I was being sarcastic.

[SQUEE]

19. I support Israel, and have for years

But to think that she is blameless in the current situation is absurd. The hardline in the IDF and the Knesset have pushed and pushed and are getting the war they wanted. I do not think we should completely turn our back on Israel, but firm sanctions and limiting our assistance until they come to the table is our obligation as a nation.

Never again, that means US TOO.
IF the only way we as Jews can find to survive is ethnic cleansing and apartheid, then we DESERVE to disappear.

[2banon]

33. Does it occur to you that there may be a logical reason for being treated with "disdain"?

kind of like White Americans being treated with "Disdain" by Native Americans, African Americans historically speaking.. current disdain worldwide for Murkans is another OP altogether.

[DanTex]

12. Also, that link doesn't quite say what you think it does.

Respondents identifying as liberal Democrats were five times as likely as conservative Republicans to sympathize more with the Palestinians.

Not that it really matters, because, like I said, this isn't about taking sides, it's about being on the side of peace. I'm both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine. I'm anti-killing.

[malaise]

17. Maybe they (like you )

are on the wrong side of world history.

Genocide s never forgiven. I thought all Jews knew that.

[Hippo_Tron]

53. Hamas isn't an existential threat to Israel, they would survive fine without US aid...

I don't think it would be a wise diplomatic move to cut it off, however.

[LTX]

41. A "dangerously low" number of dead jews? Pause for a moment, and think about what you're saying.

[DanTex]

46. Umm, that post was sarcasm, and "dangerously low" referred (sarcastically) to the ratio

Palestinian to Israeli casualties.

I was mocking the notion that bombing hospitals and children was necessary for the survival of Israel.

Not sure what you're getting at here.

[LTX]

49. Ok. Fair enough. I guess I overreacted. With all the scorekeeping around here, though,

it just seems like more dead jews would make an awful lot of people happy. Or at least more complacent about the war.

[morningfog]

22. That does not comport with reality.

[Comrade Grumpy]

24. Is this a parody?

[sulphurdunn]

40. iThere's definately

a struggle for survival going on here, but the evidence suggests Israel's survival is not the one threatened.

[ieoeja]

15. Last time we did that, Israel was almost destroyed. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. And, now that we're doing it, Gaza is being destroyed.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

36. but some lives matter more than others

[Hippo_Tron]

54. They've got nuclear weapons now, they're not going anywhere

[Orrex]

23. If we do that, how with they fill Palestinian children with flechette rounds?

[yellowwoodII]

38. I agree

Israel wouldn't be so quick to attack if they didn't have arms that we supplied. By supplying arms, we are morally responsible for the massacre. 560 Palestinians so far, 20 Israelis. This isn't a war.

[Comrade Grumpy]

69. Agreed. That's our tax dollars killing Palestinian kids. n/t