Aside from Obama’s unparalleled clarity, thus far, on his utter and “unconditional” commitment to Israel, he, along with his officials, continue to borrow similar vague slogans that were used enthusiastically by the Bush administrations: national security, national interests, spreading of American ideals, values, and all the rest. FULL ARTICLE
|
|









5 comments ↓
Yeah, the message is clear. Resist an occupying army and you’re considered a terrorist. Right out of the Bush playbook.
While I see, in general, the Israeli side as the aggressor in this conflict, I can also see that much of the same kind of ideology permeates both sides. Some great reading on this:
Israel and Palestine: A Statist War
Both sides are wrong..the leadership of Hamas, who does not live with it’s peoples in Gaza as well as the nation of Isreal. Historically the only reason there was a problem was the british through their empire building and exploitation of nations & peoples did nothing to help anyone but them selves…so why hasn’t the arab brotherhood of nations ever go after the brits in the UN or EU parliment or the world court ? because it’s all about the money…
I’m going to have to agree with you on this one – the leadership on both sides are in the wrong – while the everyday people, disproportionately in Gaza, continue to suffer.
If you haven’t read this article, I think it makes an excellent case for your point:
Israel and Palestine: a Statist War
Steve and Michael. I have to disagree somewhat in your assessment of the cause of the strife there. I wrote a comment to Mr Bergstrom and pointed out that I feel the Zionist dream of the restoration of ersatz Israel is the real burr under the saddle barring peace in that region. I won’t repeat all the reasons here but will ask you two to take a look at my comment to Mr. Bergstrom.
Leave a Comment