What do US citizens want?

Great stats: 71% of Americans want their gov't's policies vis a vis Israel and the Palestinians to be "even-handed." (SO LET YOUR CONGRESSpERSONS know they're out of step with main street America -- and they're "back home" next week so see if you can get a meeting.)

Here's an excerpt from Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com

A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of 18 countries finds that in 14 of them people mostly say their government should not take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Just three countries favor taking the Palestinian side (Egypt, Iran, and Turkey) and one is divided (India). No country favors taking Israel's side, including the United States, where 71 percent favor taking neither side.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/20/israel/

The original study:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/503.php?nid=&id=&pnt=503

REALLY interesting poll of 6 Arab countries from 2008

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/503.php?nid=&id=&pnt=503


JOIN DESMOND TUTU'S CALL TO END THE SIEGE OF GAZA http://www.freegaza.org/

Meeting Torture Victims in Gaza

Meeting Torture Victims in Gaza

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3001387077853267719

Whynotnews Gaza Video playlist

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=8030E34DC8051C01

More US congressman visit Gaza

US congressmen visit aid projects, ruins in Gaza By BEN HUBBARD GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) — Two U.S. congressmen made a rare visit to the Gaza Strip on Tuesday, meeting with aid workers and touring scenes of destruction left by Israel's military offensive. Reps. Bob Inglis and Stephen F. Lynch pointedly avoided contact with the Hamas militant group, which rules Gaza and which the United States, European Union and Israel consider a terrorist organization. Lynch, a Democrat from Massachusetts, said the world must find a way to address a "legitimate humanitarian crisis" in Gaza. "We need to act with some urgency here. There is a humanitarian crisis going on and we can't dawdle," Lynch told the Associated Press. Israel launched the three-week offensive in December with the aim of ending rocket fire on southern Israel by Hamas militants. Palestinian human rights groups say more than 1,400 people were killed, including more than 900 civilians. Thousands of buildings and much of Gaza's infrastructure were destroyed or damaged. Israel says the death toll was lower, and most of those killed were Hamas militants. Lynch said he and Inglis, a Republican from South Carolina, visited a project run by Catholic Relief Services in a heavily damaged neighborhood and a tent camp where displaced Gazans have been living since the war ended on Jan. 18. They also visited the grounds of the American International School of Gaza, a U.S.-style school the Israeli army flattened during the offensive, saying militants launched rockets from its grounds. Lynch said the destruction in Gaza was worse than he expected. Since Hamas violently seized the territory from forces loyal to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in June 2007, Israel and Egypt have maintained tight border control. Restrictions on cement and other building materials — which Israel says could benefit Hamas — have greatly hampered the reconstruction effort. "It is problematic having the checkpoints closed," Lynch said. He said aid could be brought into Gaza through the U.N. and other organizations, and that safeguards could be put in place to make sure resources were used properly. But the U.S. will not work with Hamas until it changed its policy toward Israel and rejected violence, he said. Tuesday's visit followed a similar tour earlier this year by Sen. John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, and two Democratic congressmen, Keith Ellison of Minnesota and Brian Baird of Washington.

Today is Rachel Corrie's Birthday

Dear Sandee,
Today would be the 30th birthday of my daughter Rachel, who was run over by an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza in 2003 as she tried to save a Palestinian family's home from demolition. Last month, when my husband Craig and I traveled to Gaza with CODEPINK, it was so moving for us to reconnect with the families and the children that Rachel cared so deeply about.

The 793,520 children of Gaza (56% of the population) have lived under occupation and siege all of their lives. They suffered unconscionably through the attacks and devastation inflicted upon them by the Israeli military during twenty-two days of horror in December and January. Hundreds did not survive. But those who did, still smile and laugh like all children. They are beautiful, resilient, curious and full of potential. They deserve the basics that all children in the world should have: ample food, clean water, healthcare, safe places to play and learn. They deserve the tools to deal with their nightmares, and sleep that is not punctuated by bombing.

They deserve life, freedom, and hope.

We can be a part of the hope and the solution by arming ourselves with the experience, knowledge, and insight to be stronger advocates for these children and their families--to open the borders, to end the siege, to end the occupation, and to see justice prevail.
We hope you will join CODEPINK in the campaign to Speak Out for the Youth of Gaza.

In peace,

Cindy Corrie

Join a delegation:
One, May 28-June 5, is open to everyone and will enter from Egypt
A Jewish delegation, June 5-14, will enter from Israel. Click here to find out how to travel with us.
If you can't join our delegation, you can still help the children of Gaza. Your donation of $10 will purchase a backpack full of school supplies for one child. $100 will contribute toward building an International Friendship Playground at one of the schools bombed during the invasion. To donate, click here and if you want to help Gazan children in your mother's name, you can donate and we will send her a card with news of your gift.

And don't forget, you are all invited to our Mother's Day celebration in front of the White House May 9-10! For more info, visit www.codepinkalert.org/mothersday.

Thank you for showing the children of Gaza that another world is possible!

P.S. We'd love for you to be part of our Virtual Mother's Day Quilt--an online photo mosaic that showcases our strength and diversity as mothers and women working for peace. Upload our Mother's Day pledge here, take a photo of yourself holding the print out, and send the picture to photos4codepink@gmail.com along with your name, location and any other info you'd like us to include, and we'll add you to our quilt. We can't wait to see your beautiful face!

What 'Israel's right to exist' means to Palestinians

Recognition would imply acceptance that they deserve to be treated as subhuman

by John V. Whitbeck

JEDDAH, SAUDI ARABIA - Since the Palestinian elections in 2006, Israel and much of the West have asserted that the principal obstacle to any progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace is the refusal of Hamas to "recognize Israel," or to "recognize Israel's existence," or to "recognize Israel's right to exist."

These three verbal formulations have been used by Israel, the United States, and the European Union as a rationale for collective punishment of the Palestinian people. The phrases are also used by the media, politicians, and even diplomats interchangeably, as though they mean the same thing. They do not.

"Recognizing Israel" or any other state is a formal legal and diplomatic act by one state with respect to another state. It is inappropriate – indeed, nonsensical – to talk about a political party or movement extending diplomatic recognition to a state. To talk of Hamas "recognizing Israel" is simply to use sloppy, confusing, and deceptive shorthand for the real demand being made of the Palestinians.

"Recognizing Israel's existence" appears on first impression to involve a relatively straightforward acknowledgment of a fact of life. Yet there are serious practical problems with this language. What Israel, within what borders, is involved? Is it the 55 percent of historical Palestine recommended for a Jewish state by the UN General Assembly in 1947? The 78 percent of historical Palestine occupied by the Zionist movement in 1948 and now viewed by most of the world as "Israel" or "Israel proper"? The 100 percent of historical Palestine occupied by Israel since June 1967 and shown as "Israel" (without any "Green Line") on maps in Israeli schoolbooks?

Israel has never defined its own borders, since doing so would necessarily place limits on them. Still, if this were all that was being demanded of Hamas, it might be possible for the ruling political party to acknowledge, as a fact of life, that a state of Israel exists today within some specified borders. Indeed, Hamas leadership has effectively done so in recent weeks.
"Recognizing Israel's right to exist," the actual demand being made of Hamas and Palestinians, is in an entirely different league. This formulation does not address diplomatic formalities or a simple acceptance of present realities. It calls for a moral judgment.

There is an enormous difference between "recognizing Israel's existence" and "recognizing Israel's right to exist." From a Palestinian perspective, the difference is in the same league as the difference between asking a Jew to acknowledge that the Holocaust happened and asking him to concede that the Holocaust was morally justified. For Palestinians to acknowledge the occurrence of the Nakba – the expulsion of the great majority of Palestinians from their homeland between 1947 and 1949 – is one thing. For them to publicly concede that it was "right" for the Nakba to have happened would be something else entirely. For the Jewish and Palestinian peoples, the Holocaust and the Nakba, respectively, represent catastrophes and injustices on an unimaginable scale that can neither be forgotten nor forgiven.

To demand that Palestinians recognize "Israel's right to exist" is to demand that a people who have been treated as subhumans unworthy of basic human rights publicly proclaim that they are subhumans. It would imply Palestinians' acceptance that they deserve what has been done and continues to be done to them. Even 19th-century US governments did not require the surviving native Americans to publicly proclaim the "rightness" of their ethnic cleansing by European colonists as a condition precedent to even discussing what sort of land reservation they might receive. Nor did native Americans have to live under economic blockade and threat of starvation until they shed whatever pride they had left and conceded the point.

Some believe that Yasser Arafat did concede the point in order to buy his ticket out of the wilderness of demonization and earn the right to be lectured directly by the Americans. But in fact, in his famous 1988 statement in Stockholm, he accepted "Israel's right to exist in peace and security." This language, significantly, addresses the conditions of existence of a state which, as a matter of fact, exists. It does not address the existential question of the "rightness" of the dispossession and dispersal of the Palestinian people from their homeland to make way for another people coming from abroad.

The original conception of the phrase "Israel's right to exist" and of its use as an excuse for not talking with any Palestinian leaders who still stood up for the rights of their people are attributed to former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. It is highly likely that those countries that still employ this phrase do so in full awareness of what it entails, morally and psychologically, for the Palestinian people.

However, many people of goodwill and decent values may well be taken in by the surface simplicity of the words, "Israel's right to exist," and believe that they constitute a reasonable demand. And if the "right to exist" is reasonable, then refusing to accept it must represent perversity, rather than Palestinians' deeply felt need to cling to their self-respect and dignity as full-fledged human beings. That this need is deeply felt is evidenced by polls showing that the percentage of the Palestinian population that approves of Hamas's refusal to bow to this demand substantially exceeds the percentage that voted for Hamas in January 2006.

Those who recognize the critical importance of Israeli-Palestinian peace and truly seek a decent future for both peoples must recognize that the demand that Hamas recognize "Israel's right to exist" is unreasonable, immoral, and impossible to meet. Then, they must insist that this roadblock to peace be removed, the economic siege of the Palestinian territories be lifted, and the pursuit of peace with some measure of justice be resumed with the urgency it deserves.


• John V. Whitbeck, an international lawyer, is the author of, "The World According to Whitbeck." He has advised Palestinian officials in negotiations with Israel.

Meeting with Hamas

On the evening of March 10th a small group from our delegation met with a representative from the Hamas government. She was soft spoken, polite, very articulate and intelligent. These are the notes I took at that meeting. Broken up and mostly her words.

Hamas rose out of the 1987 resistance movement. They were a subgroup of the Islamic Brotherhood.

Their resistance grew out of their social work.

After the Oslo Agreements they put more emphasis on activism.

In 1996 Hamas boycotted the elections.

In 2005 there were elected positions for Hamas.

(Something) delayed the elections. After the first election people were shocked and seated 2 of them.

No one had any idea there would be the rejection that followed.

The national political route was loosing more land so Hamas joined the political process.

Hamas does not oppose negotiations, only the form they are taking.

Hamas sees the peace process as loosing more land. There is nothing left to make 2 states.

The internal corruption (Fatah)was so large there was nothing left for the people.

The very night the results came out the U.S. cut Hamas off. They did not give them a chance.

If you do not like someone you should get to know them.

The issue is Occupation.

Hamas was also shocked by the Europeans response. They could have mediated. Hamas has repeatedly asked to talk. They are moderate and could help with extremists.

Hamas believes dialog is essential in civilization.

Policies cause extremism.

Youth are feeling a lot of depression. A lot of them feel life and death are the same.

Hamas has agreed to join unity government and follow what has already been set up . They had already said they would accept Israel based on the 1967 borders and they have agreed to a long term truce.

But Israel is insisting that they state they accept Israel personally.

What It Means to Talk to Hamas

Engaging it is fundamentally about accepting (perhaps uncomfortable) facts.

By Ben White

March 30, 2009

Sao Paulo, Brazil - March 2009 may come to be seen as a critical month in the ending of the international community's isolation of Hamas. Finally engaging Hamas would spell the end of hypocritical Western policy and bring the peace process in line with the realities of the Middle East.

First, a group of high-level US foreign policy officials, past and present, went public with their recommendation that the Obama administration talk to Hamas. Coincidentally, European politicians who visited Hamas officials in Syria about the same time echoed that view.
Typically, meetings between European lawmakers and Hamas leaders are conducted discretely, if not entirely in secret. Now, the trips have begun to be publicized: In March there were trips by a cross-party group of British and Irish members of parliaments, as well as their counterparts from Greece and Italy.

There was also an open letter to President Obama, published on March 10, and signed by more than 120 experts and academics. The letter urged a change of US policy in the Middle East. Significantly, the signatories advocated an end to the US "fear of Islamist parties coming to power," and also urged prioritizing human rights over supporting the region's autocrats.
Originally, the rationale behind isolating Hamas (a social and political movement condemned by many in the West as a terrorist group) was to weaken the organization and force a change in policy vis-a-vis the armed struggle and Israel, while simultaneously supporting the Ramallah-based leadership of Mahmoud Abbas. The international boycott emerged in parallel with the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip that began post-Palestinian parliamentary elections in early 2006. The aim: Punish the civilian population into rethinking their choice, and make a Hamas government untenable.

But the attempt to sideline Hamas has not worked. Hamas is no weaker for the cold-shoulder from diplomats, and, in fact, has been able to use the siege to deflect criticism of its policies in the Gaza Strip. The West Bank "moderates" dominated by Fatah have little to show for their negotiations with Israel; rather, the colonization of the occupied territories continues.
Consequently, the anti-Hamas united front is starting to crack. European politicians have been independently visiting Hamas leaders in Syria, and urging a rethink in the position of the so called Quartet of the US, the UN, the EU, and Russia. The appeals to Obama represent this shift in approach, reflective of both how the current policy has failed, and how engaging Hamas will be beneficial.

Ending the isolation of Hamas would strike a blow to hypocritical foreign policy – a small but important step toward changing the way the US and international community relate to Middle East politics. After Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman's success at the polls, Quartet envoy Tony Blair said that "We've got to work with whoever the Israeli people elect"– a courtesy not yet offered to the Palestinians.

Israel's propagandists have tried to use Hamas's increased power in recent years to their benefit by placing the movement at the centre of the debate, presenting the group as an extremist, Iran-sponsored existential threat to the Jewish state. Yet Hamas has only been around for 20 years; Israel conquered the occupied territories in 1967, while Palestinians were originally expelled from their homes more than 60 years ago.

Thus to engage Hamas is to acknowledge that the movement is not integral to the conflict, but neither is it peripheral nor ignorable. It has grown into a powerful social and political force, with a tendency toward prioritizing the pragmatism of political power. The oft-cited Charter – rightly condemned as anti-Semitic, but penned in 1988 by one person – has become increasingly insignificant; the discourse of ceasefires, truces, and national liberation typically trumps inflexible religious doctrine.

But engaging Hamas is fundamentally about accepting (perhaps uncomfortable) facts. Hamas was democratically elected and continues to enjoy considerable support from Gazans. It's important to ask not just why it got such substantial backing in 2006, but why it continues to despite the ongoing Israeli siege and the devastation wreaked in the December war, as well as the cases of human rights abuses by Hamas personnel.

The lesson is that the Palestinian people saw through the flaws of the international community's approach to the conflict long before a few voices in foreign capitals started raising questions about the wisdom of isolating Hamas. In the Middle East, the international community's self-defined moderate/extremist division is but a transparent charade.

The peace process game, the vacuous endorsements of a two-state solution as Israel absorbs the occupied territories, the lack of will to hold Israel to account – this is the fuel for Hamas support, and no amount of "isolation" can change the profound unpopularity of current US and Quartet policies among Palestinians.

Ending the boycott would not be an endorsement of Hamas, but an end to the obtuse – and damaging – refusal to recognize reality.

Ben White is a freelance writer, specializing in the Middle East. His articles appear in a wide variety of publications and his forthcoming book, "Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner's Guide" will be published later this year.