AMERICAN SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL NOT AS STRONG

American support not as strong as Israel wears on its lapel.

By

 

                                                                      Joseph Chez

December 5, 2012

If one could percolate all of the conflict in the Middle East, the 9-11 attack on US soil and civil liberties Americans have lost as a result of the fabricated #WarOnTerror , one could see at the bottom of the strainer, the remainder source of the world’s problems, including our own, and that is: our involvement as main arbitrator of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the blind support US gives Israel, and the footprint we have in every repressive regime or kingdom in that part of the world.  The facts notwithstanding, the recent vote at the United Nations favoring the Palestinians cause, truly places the US on the world stage, however, the king now stands naked before the eyes of the world – alone and isolated. So what will happen next to US and Israel?

On November 29, 2012 State Dept Sec. Hillary Clinton officially commented that the UN Vote was “unfortunate and counter-productive.” But just a day after, at a dinner in her honor, she was more sincere; she lambasted Israel for having been “insensitive” to the Palestinian needs – diplomatic language for being “treacherous.”  In the meantime, during the UN vote, it is said that at the Knesset, the Likud and nationalist leaders were somewhat put-off, and were even sarcastic at the UN vote they felt was meaningless.  

Thus, brushing off their shoulders for what had just happened, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu along with his closest political right wing supporter, Foreign Minister Abigdor Lieberman, announced Israel would began building new settlements outside the E1 area, i.e., building east of Jerusalem, in the area within West Bank proper.  Additionally, the Israeli government immediately issued a public briefing stating it would also be confiscating Palestinian funds from several sources.  These would be some of the several responses the Israeli government would do – and more.  Thus, one can just imagine what Israel was contemplating, after having come out unscathed from a barrage of rickety-rockets from Hamas and with full official support of the European Union and the United States of America, Netanyahu’s regime must have felt untouchable. Moreover, their “Iron dome” was almost impenetrable and this perhaps gave the Israeli government a sense of invincibility.

However, to the surprise of Israel, most of the European nations voted in support of the de facto state of Palestine, with the exception of the Czech Republic.  In fact, they even expected Germany to vote no, but instead, Germany abstained. Nonetheless, despite the overwhelming rebuke, Israel remains unrepentant and unapologetic.

The United States on the other hand, officially remains supportive of Israel’s approach to negotiated peace talks between the two parties.  However, the Obama Administration realizes that both Israel and the US are now lumped together as a team that is isolated from the rest of the diplomatic world.   But, unlike Israel, the US is realistic and recognizes the UN vote was a diplomatic disaster.

For Israel, its modus operandi will remain status quo ante (same as before).  But, is it wise for Israel to continue kicking the can down the road – as Likud party leaders refer to, of their policy of peace talks with the Palestinians?  Can their overconfident attitude and robust US endless supply of weaponry guarantee Israel’s peace and security? The answer is NO – as a great number of nations were so deliberate in their UN vote. Moreover, the dynamics in the area have changed and they do not favor Israel.  Also, keep in mind that Netanyahu’s hope for US president, Mitt Romney, lost – and Republicans, the staunch religious political support for Israel, also lost.  And of greatest concern to Israel, is that 70% of American Jews voted for President Obama and not for the Republican candidate who made Israel’s support the hallmark of his campaign.

So, what these facts in American politics say is that support for Israel may not be as prominent and solid as Israel wears on its lapel.  In fact, the American people may well be fickle, but, they can also be just as pragmatic. Thus, support for Israel can officially change if Israel were to remain obstinate.  Already, criticism of Israel is coming out of previously whispering conversations – the taboo no longer a social constraint.  

Therefore, the most obvious and reasonable  course of action for Israel is to stop the intransigency and undergo UN supervision of peace talks, with the end goal, of adhering to existing UN resolutions  which call for Israel to retreat back to 1967 borders.  Additionally, the US must step back and allow the UN to take the lead in peace negotiations, but it should also not stand in the way in any UN Security Council resolution favoring a Palestinian state, or condemning Israel if the case may arise. For as long as Israel understands that the US can or will use its veto power at the Security Council, Israel will have no incentive to negotiate in good faith with the Palestinians or adhere to international law requirements.

Already, several European nations such as France and England, are recalling their ambassadors in Israel for consultations. In diplomatic gesture, it is a slap in the face for Israel, but also for its benefactor, the US.  Many other nations may also follow suit.  In sum, what we do will determine who we are and what we stand for.  Thus, in the face of international scorn we must not stand with the status quo.

 

Republican Party's aims to privatize public services

October 31, 2012


Mitt Romney, the Sara Palins, conservative Republicans, Tea PartyNJs, and low information individuals would have you believe that a market-based government - better yet - a completely privatized society would make for a better world. Never mind, that in the preamble of the United States Constitution and within the core of the revered document, the intent of government as conceived by framers of the Constitution, government was to exist generally "to provide for the common defense .. and promote the general welfare." Therefore, the question must asked; why Republicans continue to promote a take over of a public government and institute in its place, a market\-based society in which government does not exist and a capitalist entity would entirely rule over the lives of the citizenry?  And what is it that these individuals do not understand about society in general, in which church, state and commerce are completely separate concepts, in spite of the intrinsic symbiosis?

Oh yes, the Whig Party in early American History was the party of the rich-land owners and powerful businessmen who favored a market-oriented economy and robust industrialization.  Sound familiar? Yes, it was the Whig/Republican Party, who then opposed Andrew Jackson's populous democracy which promoted for a more egalitarian society.  Today, the same bunch of con-artist continue with their malevolent drive to have a capitalist oligarchy rule over the masses.

In this 2012 presidential election,  Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate has called for the dismantling of FEMA - better yet, privatize it.  However, when asked today about his previous statements regarding FEMA, he gave no answers - but instead, kept bagging old-canned food from pantries of  Mormon families.

Super Storm #Sandy should give any one pause about considering privatizing the role of the federal government or give such responsibility to each of the 50 states. Remember, E Pluribus Unum is better than out of the many, we profit.

I urge you to vote for President Barack Obama - 2012!

Joseph Chez

 

A Mormon GOP Candidate #MittRomney notwithstanding, the VP debate tonight is more about politics.

 

In the Vice Presidential candidate debate for this 2012 election, two catholic boys will be duking it out in the debate. And although, the politics will be about American issues, the essence behind each party's philosophy will be constructed through their religious values.  Interestingly, both VP candidates are Catholic, and yet, each represent the great divide within the Catholicism credo. VP Joe Biden of course, is the Liberal or progressive wing of the church, while Paul Ryan, the Republican, overtly pushes its conservative gospel. 

 

 

The Liberal/Progressive Catholics believe in freedom of conscience, thus, are pro-choice.  The Conservative Catholics, such as Paul Ryan, promote a conservative/evangelistic approach to family values, such as asserting to be anti-abortion.  Furthering the rift in the Catholic gospel, is that Liberal Democrats who choose to label themselves as Catholic, actively promote providing economic assistance and health care for the poor and the needy, while conservative Catholic Republicans, preach for a personal responsibility of meeting one's needs and strongly want government to impose regulations against women wanting to choose to abort. Furthermore, Conservative Catholics, who label themselves as Republicans, do so based on one issue; the issue of abortion. However, many go further, such as Paul Ryan, who object to government assistance to the poor.

 

Even within the church, bishops are countervailing the work of Catholic nuns who promote social justice - as well as freedom of conscience.

 

Thus, the question must be asked: Which group would Jesus support?

 

 

 

Official response to mitt Romney from big bird

Mr. Mitt Romney, 

My friends through out the nation, if not the world, have been in touch with me, asking me if I will be voting for you this coming 2012 presidential election. 

Let me say, that in this last presidential debate with you and president barack obama, you mentioned my name and that of pbs and that we would be on your chopping block if and when you were to win the election to become president of the united states of America.  Surprisingly, this topic was the only negative position you publicly took during the debate, because your other positions seemed calculated and were viewed as moderate.  In fact, all of your other positions were perceived as new and improved. This explains why president obama seemed to have been caught off-guard; from your willful deception.  

Furthermore, your party’s platform is very extreme and frankly, an affront to the well being of the nation, a real threat to the future of education and foremost in my book, your social values will take us back to the dark ages.   

However, I understand why pbs or myself are an imminent threat to the intellectual deficiency of your political following.  After all, pbs is known to explore the outer boundaries of knowledge and human experience, while your political party simply wallows in mythical political and religious lore. 

So yes, I believe that if you were to become president, you would defund PBS and specifically target my audience; the little American kids who have learned the alphabet from a fun and tolerant point of view.  On the other hand, your republican brethren will continue to increase funding for little hunters of America or American kids for the exploitation of fossil fuels. But what's troubling, is that your political brethren will also attempt to bring into the classroom, religious assertions which are in contradiction with today’s science and reason.

Accordingly, it is my position that you are not fit to be president of this great nation, but granted, you do have a keen sense of mutating your political credo.  Thus, may I suggest that you contact the center for disease control, as you would be a prime specimen in the study of pathogen mutation.   

In closing, I’d like to mention that your demeanor during the debate was certainly viewed as robust. In like circumstances, let me give you mine … this is for you mitt!

Yours tweety, 

Big bird

 

Cc: kids of America and president barack obama.

 

 

Donald Trump, the consummate opportunist now BIRTHER.

By

Joseph Chez
April 27, 2011

Donald Trump is increasingly becoming unbearably repugnant. Regrettably, the Trump crest was known for elegance, grace, but also, for the apex of financial success. However, since Mr. Trump has seemingly entered the race bait for 2012, his political dump has not only embraced right-wing extreme positions, but has also taken the lead in the republican “birther” movement.

Yet, while the American public was becoming tired of the birther nonsense, Donald Trump and Republicans continue to pursue what they purport to be a legitimate issue; of whether the President is indeed a US citizen. But let's be frank about this; Republicans are using the birther issue to belittle the President.

Indeed, the once respected Donald Trump - well known for his financial success, can now add the not-so coveted title of "birther" to his list of personal achievements. The question however, is why this individual wallowing in political turpitude which can only soil his personal credits?

Moreover, it appears that Mr. Trump is trolling the political waters perhaps to give shine to the fading Trump crest. This fired up individual has truly surprised the American public by his ludicrous behavior. However, his persistance on the birther issue has not only tickled the fancy of CONservatives but has the media's thong in a tizzy. Thus, the media blitz continues and this emboldens Donald Trump.

So, is Trump for real? Well, here’s my take: Donald Trump is truly not the successful duckling he portrays to be. I say this because pin stripes, wads of money and multiple former wives do not make a man a pinnacle of success. History is full of successful pitchmen who sold snake oil to unsuspecting god-fearing folk and sadly, some fools took the pitch – while the salesman became even richer. In the case of Donald Trump, the man is but a pitchman.

At one time in his early failed real estate dealings, the bank was about to foreclose his entire boot and caboodle, but the pitchman told the bank to lend him more money or he would not pay them back. The bank felt it had no choice so it lent Trump more money, which in the end, allowed him to buy even more real estate. On another occasion, Trump approached the City of New York and proposed to buy blighted and unwanted city property. Such was his proposal, that the city sold him land on the shorefront for pennies on the dollar, real estate which is now prime real estate worth billions. Smart businessman some may argue, but I submit to you, can he simply just be an opportunist?

But, such is the gambler, he sees an opportunity to deceive his target and trumps on the chance to win. However, Mr. Trump has in the past held political views which were deemed somewhat liberal. Of course, the country has since taken a turn to the right, politically –with most Republicans even embracing ultra-right political and social positions. In fact, the 2010 mid-term elections seemed to have brought out many of the country’s old demons back and are now openly expressed without remorse or apology. Accordingly, republicans consider the 2010 elections results as a referendum for the country to politically, take a turn to the right. Now, racist remarks, xenophobic rants and rhetorical assassination are now the norm in the political arena. Further, with newly earned extreme-right credentials, republican candidates for the 2012 presidential election have begun to jockey in an attempt to reach for the coveted world leadership role – the US presidency. However, these republican candidates are more of the same; political retreads, flesh-repentant repeats, or Pollyannaish CONservatives- with no metaphysical prowess sufficient to measure up to President Barack Obama and win the 2012 presidential election. But, to no one's surprise, in comes the consummate opportunist, Donald Trump. Of course, Mr. Trump has since changed his political feathers and now purports to be a devout Christian, a family values man, a war hawk - that would take other countries’ oil, and would even confront the Chinese, militarily or otherwise. Yes, the pompous opportunist now aims to discredit and take down the mighty sitting President. His modus operandi? Troll the bottom of the cesspool for snake-oil and sell it to the American public.

The 2012 presidential race is now in full swing, but regrettably it is filled with racist innuendo and malevolant intrigue against President Barack Obama. But what else is to be expected from the CONservative right-wing but to resort to old Jim crow South. Thus, one must wonder; whether Republicans have continued their White Citizen’s Council affinity but now wear Trump’s Country Club clothes. And let's not be fooled by Trump's assertions; that he has good relations with “the blacks."

The good news today, April 27, 2011 is that once again, President Obama released his long-form birth certificate to ease concerns from the American public, and as the president stated; that this birther issue was becoming distracting from the real issues confronting the country.

Excuse me? Excuse me?! So, who trumped who? Really, Mr. Donald Trump is looking rather foolish.

MUBARAK, THE EGYTIAN STORM IS UPON YOU!

By


Joseph Chez

In the spirit of the Egyptian storm God, Seth, the Egyptian people will gouge the eye of the 30 year reign of “dictator” Hosni (Horus) Mubarak. However, the world should know that democracy is not the sole understanding or privilege for western societies. The fact that primarily, the United States of America, England, and other European powers as well as other Middle East regional fiefdoms, have given official recognition, tacit approval of Mubarak’s authoritarian 30 year rule, or provided direct military support for this tyrant, it is clear that the people of Egypt have decided that enough is enough. The thunderous voice of the Egyptians today echoes the cries of Tunisians, Libyans, Syrians, Jordanians, Yemeni, Kuwaiti, Saudi, et al. Yes, the cry for freedom and democracy, just like a desert storm is thundering and blowing winds of change.

Furthermore, Egyptians as well as other peoples of the Middle East decry the West’s position that stability of the region or peace for Israel rest upon the need for oppressive Arab regimes to exist and prosper - in spite of the tight reign on the people. Accordingly, the civil discontent of Egyptians, as well as from other Arab peoples now question the hypocrisy of the West’s explanation that democracy is a process rather than a fair and representative ballot choice of the masses. But wait, Western powers have been eerily quiet so far into the storm for freedom. Instead, those knee-deep in mea culpa can only give benign diplomatic language; they do not directly ask for Mubarak to step down but merely affirm the close and friendly ties with the Mubarak regime. President Obama on the other hand, squeamishly began with a simple demand for freedom to Tweet for the Egyptian people. But just today, Feb 1, 2011, President Obama was more demanding and asked for a smooth transition of government and affirmed the universal rights for democracy and freedom for the Egyptian people. And yet, he could not utter a more direct position in behalf of the U.S., asking for this dictator to step down. This may be why Mubarak has taken a stern position of not resigning until the end of his term ending in September 2011. Thus, Obama’s careful calculated diplomatic mush must therefore be for fear of Mubarak Wiki-liking that Egypt was the destination for U.S. victims of rendition and torture, or that Egypt and Jordan were staging areas for western forces to invade other Arab nations.

What is not a secret to the world is the fact that the U.S. has annually given the Mubarak regime 1.5 billion of U.S. dollars in the form of credit so this tyrant could purchase US and British made security armament. But it should be noted that such armament was certainly not for defense against any out side potential enemy, but rather, for internal civilian control. In addition, much of that foreign aid for security has also filled the pockets full of dollars for all of Mubarak’s internal security cronies. The other 200 plus millions in US aid earmarked for the benefit of civilians, actually never trickled down to the Egyptian on the street. Instead, those millions indeed helped for lavish living abroad for Mubarak’s family and friends, as well as maximizing the bank accounts in Swiss banks of those Egyptians close to the dictator.

Currently, a stand-off continues and Mubarak is not blinking, as Western nations are being a bit squeamish at what type of government may result in the end. Their fear is that a theocratic government replacing the Mubarak regime may in fact pose a great danger to the safety of Israel, the model of democracy for that region – as the West believes. However, it must be noted that Israel is very much a democracy, but immensely religious. And further, while the US, being Israel’s grandest benefactor and personal safety guarantor, pursuit of religion by Arabs is deemed by the West as connected with terrorism. Is this a double standard?

So, into the storm and the Egyptian people thundering their demands, what do they really want? For starters, they want democratic principles in their daily lives as well as economic reform that benefits the people. They want the freedom to choose their leaders, whom ever they may be. They want a popular elected leader – not a dictator, king or pharaoh. And certainly, they do not want the West to dictate whether a fair and popular election is agreeable with the White House, 10 Downing St, or Tel Aviv. Conveniently, the Mubarak regime has been a willing lackey for Western powers for the last 30 years and as a consequence, the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks have not moved and inch. The road to peace is designed that way, with approving Arab leaders no doubt. However, the nature of things favors what is only right; history is on the side of the Egyptian people as well as for other Arab nations willing to challenge the status quo.

So, President Barack Obama, it is time to take as stand and be on the right side of history. The Egyptian people are questioning our resolve to stand up for democratic principles – and demand that we mean what we say. You must therefore be clear on the issue, and ask for this dictator to step down.

As for you Hosni Mubarak, it is time for you to leave Egypt. You have dishonored the consent of the Egyptian people and you have betrayed the trust of the nation. If you choose to stand your ground and carry out more injustice upon the Egyptian people, know that the storm is upon you and you will be judged.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SHOULD RECOGNIZE PALESTINE AS AN INDEPENDENT STATE

.....Whereas the United States of America believes in equality and justice for all of mankind, the people of the United States of America declares its support and recognition for the independent State of Palestine effective June 1, 2009.

Mankind remains hopeful. However, the Prime Minister of Israel will soon meet and greet President Barack Obama in Washington D.C. We know of course that the main topic of conversation will focus on the world's point of origin for its primary geo-political problem; the Israeli continued occupation of Palestinian territory and world efforts to bring about a two-state solution. Yet, once again the new Israeli leader comes to Washington to get its credentials legitimized and receive a nod and a wink of the eye. But, will President Obama follow the failed pattern of a failed foreign policy for the Middle East? Of course, President Barack Obama has publicly indicated that he hopes and supports for a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem. On the other hand, the new Israeli leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called for "strong measures" and containment of the Palestinian people. Conveniently however, he has also avoided supporting a two-state solution.

Since 1967, Israel has occupied land, in clear and defiant posture to the United Nation Security Council's Resolution 242, which called for Israel to withdraw to pre-5 June 1967 lines. Still, each and every Israeli government, with the aid and abetting of the United States, has made little effort to abide by the UN Resolution. Instead, the process has been set up to deceive the world, by mock-trials placed on the Palestinians to see if they will meet certain criteria - before concrete peace talks could began. The requirements placed on previous agreements, were so insurmountable, they were conceived and designed to make any and all efforts for peace doomed for failure. In other words, the road to peace has had the look and feel of a mirage. Consequently, nothing changes in respect to resolving the issue of occupied lands or abiding by international law or UN mandates.

This time, Benjamin Netanyahu, on his subsequent second post as prime minister for Israel, again leads a far-right Israeli government. His agenda is a no-holds- bar against the Palestinians; "harsh measures and containment" he has said. Should we surprised? After all, it has been Israel's policy to only withdraw to pre 1967 lines, if and when the State of Israel felt safe and its boundaries were secured. Thus, under such pretext, Israel's only concern has been to retain and annex much of the territories it now occupies since June 1967.

Clearly, President Barack Obama without equivocation, must invoke its own posture for a two-state solution and not be drawn into a deceptive peace process as did his predecessors. Of much concern, is PM Netanyahu's support from the extreme right in Israel. His foreign minister , Avigdor Lieberman has made no secret of wanting to ethnically cleanse Israel and occupied lands of all Arabs. This should send chills to every decent American. Thus, continued complicity with Israeli deception can only be counter productive to the safety and stability of the entire world.

Notwithstanding, many sectors of opinion believe that the issue of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is unsolvable and thus, peace unattainable. Driving this premise is of course, far-right religious groups in the United States and in Israel. But, is a two-state solution difficult, or peace attainable? The answer is relative to the willingness to truly wanting peace and a Palestinian state along side the Israeli state. In my view, peace can only be accomplished when an independent Palestinian state is established. There should be no pre-conditions set by Israel or the United States, and UN Resolution 242 must be enforced. Jerusalem can be divided in to two sectors and either or both parties can choose to make their portion - their capital. A major concession by by Israel could be that it accepts the Arabs not accepting Israel as a state- as it would matter little since the world body, the UN, would give its full recognition. On the Arab side, Palestinians could concede to a "no right of return" for former Palestinians who previously owned land and were illegally driven out by Israeli authorities -and became refugees. Of course, there should be a just compensation for these Palestinians who lost their legal property.

Further, it is ironic that in the United States, its people democratically toppled the far-right Bush government, but only to have a far-right government elected in Israel. Consequently, President Obama and its Israeli counterpart now find themselves diametrically positioned - at opposite ends of the issue. So what President Obama must do? He must remain resolute on his judicious views and convictions - but also realize that PM Netanyahu is willing and able to continue the deception for peace. And yet, there is hope. For in the State of Israel, there are still voices of reason, sensibility and peace seekers. Yesterday, Shimon Peres, a former prime minster of Israel, went before AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, a powerful lobby group in the U.S. which lobbies in behalf of the State of Israel) and touching on the issue of peace, he said it best, "I only have one question, WHY NOT NOW"?

In 1948, when the Jewish state declared its independence, the United States of America was the first to recognize Israel's sovereignty and thus - the State of Israel was born. Today, 60 years later, the insurmountable Israeli/Palestinian problem can and should be resolved. In fact, putting aside deception and religious obstacles, the United States of America can just as easily put an end to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict by simply, not just giving support to the peace process, but by officially proclaiming recognition for the sovereignty and independent State of Palestine - and peace will follow. Yes we can.

Joseph Chez