Showing posts with label Hypocrisy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hypocrisy. Show all posts

The Myth of “Resuming Negotiations”


By John Kleinheksel Sr, FPI, (Friends of Palestinians and Israelis) I The Current State of Affairs The current strategy to get both sides to the negotiating table (in the present cultural environment) won’t work. And here’s why. The Israeli/Jewish state doesn’t believe in negotiations. They are wedded to the belief that all of the land belongs to Jews and must not be shared with the “Other”. Hard as it may be, it is this cultural constant that has to be changed. The Western press keeps repeating that the HAMAS charter calls for the dismantling of the Zionist/Israeli state. What is not widely known is that the platform/charter of the present Likud administration refuses to consider the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state. The Likud Party Charter states:
a. The Jordan River will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.
b. Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem.
c. The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan River.
d. The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.
Ariel Sharon did “give up” Gaza, but it is so controlled by fences and checkpoints, it’s a virtual prison. As Stephen Sizer says in his blog: The recent Palestinian UN bid and (the) Palestinian acceptance to UNESCO has once again put the “Peace Process” front and center. Listening to Netanyahu and the U.S. Administration, getting the Israelis and Palestinians “back to the negotiating table” is the utmost priority for a lasting peace deal. Although Netanyahu plays the part, the details of his party platform need to be taken into account as a “peace partner” to show the reality behind the circus. So, while Netanyahu wants no pre-conditions from the Palestinians going into “negotiations” his party charter and ideology say otherwise. Amos Schocken, the publisher of Haaretz (a progressive voice in Israel), wrote an editorial on November 25, 2011. He makes the case that all recent Israeli leaders are basically following the principles of the Gush Emunim, a religious movement that claims God decrees all of the land for the Jewish state. Here is his shocking expose: The strategy that follows from the ideology of Gush Emunim is clear and simple: It perceives of the Six-Day War as the continuation of the War of Independence [1948], both in terms of seizure of territory, and in its impact on the Palestinian population. According to this strategy, the occupation boundaries of the Six-Day War are the borders that Israel must set for itself. And with regard to the Palestinians living in that territory - those who did not flee or were not expelled - they must be subjected to a policy that will encourage their flight, eventuate in their expulsion, deprive them of their rights, and bring about a situation in which those who remain will not be even second-class citizens, and their fate will be of interest to no one. They will be like the Palestinian refugees of the War of Independence; that is their desired status. As for those who are not refugees, an attempt should be made to turn them into "absentees" [to better dispossess them]. Unlike the Palestinians who remained in Israel after the War of Independence, the Palestinians in the territories should not receive Israeli citizenship, owing to their large number, but then this, too, should be of interest to no one.
The ideology of Gush Emunim springs from religious, not political motivations. It holds that Israel is for the Jews, and it is not only the Palestinians in the territories who are irrelevant: Israel's Palestinian citizens are also exposed to discrimination with regard to their civil rights and the revocation of their citizenship.
There are competing religious-based fundamentalisms at work in Israel/Palestine. They are seemingly mutually exclusive, i.e., they can’t both be fully implemented. Israel rejects Islamic fundamentalism (whether by Hamas or Iran), yet fails to admit its own religion-inspired fundamentalism. II Where We Go from Here So what should American Christians (who have their own brands of fundamentalism) do to work for mutual respect and the rights of all people there? A good place to start is with the Christians (and Muslims) who have suffered under the occupation for decades and decades. What are they saying? What are they asking? For this we turn to the Kairos Palestine document, composed by Christians in 2009, addressed to themselves, to Muslims, Israelis, Americans and people of other nations. In a section on “resistance” (4.2), the Kairos document says, we must resist evil of whatever kind. Love is seeing the face of God in every human being. Every person is my brother or my sister. However, seeing the face of God in everyone does not mean accepting evil or aggression on their part. Rather, this love seeks to correct the evil and stop the aggression (4.2.1). When we review the history of the nations, we see many wars and much resistance to war by war, to violence by violence. The Palestinian people have gone the way of the peoples, particularly in the first stages of its struggle with the Israeli occupation. However, it also engaged in peaceful struggle, especially during the first Intifada. We recognize that all peoples must find a new way in their relations with each other and the resolution of their conflicts. The ways of force must give way to the ways of justice (4.2.2). [Resistance] must find human ways that engage the humanity of the enemy. Seeing the image of God in the face of the enemy means taking up positions in the light of this vision of active resistance to stop the injustices. . . (Kairos Palestine, 4.2.3). Christians call Muslims to reject fanaticism and extremism (5.4.1). The call to Jews? Even though we have fought one another in the recent past . . . we are able to love and live together. We can organize our political life, with all its complexity, according to the logic of this love and its power (5.4.2). To the world, Palestinian Christians say: We condemn all forms of racism, whether religious or ethnic, including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia . . . . We call on you to [speak the truth] with regard to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land. . . .[and we] see boycotts and disinvestment as tools of nonviolence. . . . (6.3). Even progressive Jews like Rabbi Michael Lerner (Tikkun) argue a new consciousness is needed to avoid the exclusive blaming of one side or the other. In his recent book, Embracing Israel/Palestine, he makes the case that both Jews and Palestinians suffer from a societal form of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. A generation of healers is needed to deal with societal PTSD: On the one hand, we need a massive campaign of consciousness-raising to challenge the dominant worldview that people care only for themselves and will never be there for each other . . . . On the other hand, we need individual and small group interventions to help people, one by one, overcome the depression and splitting that keep people trapped in self-and-other-destructive patterns of behavior. On this level, the first thing we need to do is created circumstances in which people can feel safe to talk freely about the traumas that they’ve experienced to someone who will help them feel safe and genuinely heard and who will acknowledge their pain (p. 277). Rabbi Lerner even supports what he calls a “softer version” of the BDS movement (boycotts, disinvestment and sanctions). This softer version supports the right of Israel to exist, yet urges people not to buy from companies that produce consumer goods in the West Bank settlements or produce weapons or other equipment for the Israeli military to use in the West Bank and Gaza (p. 328). One of the final sections of his book deals with questions and answers. Question: Don’t the Palestinians really want to destroy the State of Israel? Aren’t they just using the camouflage of a ‘peace process’ to build up their military strength until they get the chance to do this? Answer: There are now, and will continue to be . . . a significant minority of people in each community that aspires to see the full elimination of the other side. But maximalist fantasies have typically yielded to new realities in the Middle East. If the majority of Palestinians and Israelis are living in their own secure states with democratic and human-rights-observing governments and with economies providing a decent standard of living for everyone, those troubling aspirations to destroy the Other will become more like the Jewish prayer books’ call for the restoration of animal sacrifices on the grounds of the Jews’ ancient Temple—not yet given up, but nevertheless not likely to be made the cornerstone of any but a small and manageable fringe (p. 379). III Countering Gush Emunim Ideology in the US Congress and the White House All Christians of an anti-Fundamentalist bent should join forces to counter the pernicious influence of religious fundamentalism whether in Palestine, Israel or America. When we listen further to Amos Schocken, we understand how deeply the Gush Emunim ideology has wormed its way into American politics, the “religious right” and the US House and Senate. This is especially true in the Republican Party but is also true of the Democrats and our President. Here is the continuation of Mr. Schocken’s op-ed: Since the Six-Day War, there has been no other group in Israel with the ideological resilience of Gush Emunim, and it is not surprising that many politicians have viewed that ideology as a means for realizing personal political ambitions . . . .(among them, Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu).
This ideology views the creation of an Israeli apartheid regime as a necessary tool for its realization . . . .

This ideology has enjoyed immense success in the United States, of all places. President George H.W. Bush was able to block financial guarantees to Israel because of the settlements established by the government of Yitzhak Shamir . . . .Now, though, candidates for the Republican Party's presidential nomination are competing among themselves over which of them supports Israel and the occupation more forcefully. Any of them who adopt the approach of the first President Bush will likely put an end to their candidacy.
Whatever the reason for this state of affairs - the large number of evangelicals affiliated with the Republican party, the problematic nature of the West's relations with Islam, or the power of the Jewish lobby, which is totally addicted to the Gush Emunim ideology - the result is clear: It is not easy, and may be impossible, for an American president to adopt an activist policy against Israeli apartheid. Friends, we have work to do. Work to change the culture and environment. We will be vulnerable to “the “other”. We will engage “enemies”, and be open to self-criticism and the view-points of other participants. Healing and peace will not come until we admit hurts we have caused and that we have experienced. We will blunt the influence of the Jewish and American “religious right” that almost totally permeates the current culture and discourse in both Israel and America right now. Here are resources, people and groups seeking genuine change: Read the novel, Mornings in Jenin, Susan Abulhawa, does for Palestinians what The Kite Runner did for Afghanistan Read the book, Kairos for Palestine, Rifat Odeh Kassis (Badayl/Alternatives Press), www.kairospalestine.ps Check regularly with Mark Braverman, American Jewish activist who supports land rights and peaceful co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians, www.markbraverman.org Read, Embracing Israel/Palestine: a Strategy to Heal and Transform the Middle East, Rabbi Michael Lerner, (North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA) www.tikkun.org Peace Now (The American chapter of Peace Now) www.peacenow.org.il Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP) www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP) www.cmep.org Holy Land Trust (Sami Awad in Bethlehem) www.holylandtrust.org Gush Shalom (Uri Avnery and Adam Keller) www.gushshalom.org The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD), Jeff Halper, www.ichahd.org The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), www.isna.net/interfaith Challenging Christian Zionism, www.christianzionism.org The Israeli/Palestinian Mission Network, www.israelpalestinianmissionnetwork.org


The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
Share:

Understanding the Hypocrisy of Israel: Who Are The Real Terrorists?


These six documentaries will assist you in understanding the real Terrorist are

Occupation 101: Voices of the Silenced Majority

Occupation 101 from Volunteers For Truth on Vimeo.



Peace, Propaganda, and The Promised Land




The Iron Wall




Dispatches: The Killing Zone



Defamation




AIPAC - The Israeli Lobby







The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
Share:

Some good ol’ fashioned American hypocrisy, exposed by the NYTimes:

U.S. Provides Millions in Bulletproof Vests, Rifle Scopes to West Bank Settlers

Some good ol’ fashioned American hypocrisy, exposed by the NYTimes:

… As the American government seeks to end the four-decade Jewish settlement enterprise and foster a Palestinian state in the West Bank, the American Treasury helps sustain the settlements through tax breaks on donations to support them.A New York Times examination of public records in the United States and Israel identified at least 40 American groups that have collected more than $200 million in tax-deductible gifts for Jewish settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem over the last decade. The money goes mostly to schools, synagogues, recreation centers and the like, legitimate expenditures under the tax law. But it has also paid for more legally questionable commodities: housing as well as guard dogs, bulletproof vests, rifle scopes and vehicles to secure outposts deep in occupied areas.

Cue the weak-kneed response from administration officials:

“It’s a problem,” a senior State Department official said, adding, “It’s unhelpful to the efforts that we’re trying to make.”

Daniel C. Kurtzer, the United States ambassador to Israel from 2001 to 2005, called the issue politically delicate. “It drove us crazy,” he said. But “it was a thing you didn’t talk about in polite company.”

He added that while the private donations could not sustain the settler enterprise on their own, “a couple of hundred million dollars makes a huge difference,” and if carefully focused, “creates a new reality on the ground.”

Share:

Likud Charter Does Not Recognize Palestine


Let me get this straight. The US and the International community refuses to talk to Hamas for refusing to “recognize Israel” and therefore is in the process of starving and destroying the entire Palestinian population of Gaza because of that, YET the Likud party’s charter of war criminals and thieves, does NOT recognize Palestine…Hypocrisy at the highest level!

MikeBy Frank Barat - London

In a few weeks, on February the 10th, Israel will elect its new leaders during legislative elections. The three main contenders are Tzipi Livni from the Kadima party (Ariel Sharon’s party), Ehud Barak from the Labour party and Benyamin Netanyahu from the Likud party.

Before the Gaza "war", it was a two-horse race: Livni against Netanyahu, with Netanyahu leading by a good margin in all the polls. The race became a three-horse one thanks to the Gaza “war” launched by Livni and Barak. Barak saw his ratings surge and is now back in the race. Even if he does not get elected, his party will get quite a few more seats than it had planned a few months ago.

But the frontrunner has always been Benyamin Netanyahu and he remains, in the eyes of the majority of Israel’s journalists (Gideon Levy from Haaretz) or activists (Jeff Halper from ICAHD), the more than probable future PM.

The world hopes that this election will be as “clean and democratic” (Jimmy Carter and most international observers said so) as the last Palestinian election which took place in 2006 and saw Hamas win by a large majority.

We know what happened next. To make a long story short, Israel and most of the international community refused to recognize Hamas as a legitimate party and then refused to recognize the newly-formed Palestinian unity government (formed in March 2007).

Abbas, whose goal has always been to be recognized by the US and Israel, kicked Hamas out of the government and formed a new one with Salam Fayyad, a politician and economist made in the US, as PM. A violent pre-emptive war was launched by Hamas against Fatah and Israel/US-backed militias (led by Mohammed Dahlan) and Hamas “took over” the Gaza Strip.

Even if they reacted with surprise and strongly condemned this move, the US and Israel had reached one of their long-term objectives in Palestine. “Divide and Rule” (a strategy used with great success by the US in the course of its history) was back on again with the West Bank becoming the respectable (read: cooperative) Palestinian Authority territory and Gaza turning into the Islamic and evil Hamastan.

An internationally-supported Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip followed and once more, to cut a long story short, the Gaza “war” was launched in December 2008 by Israel. We are here today, more than 1,300 Palestinians dead and 5,000 injured later.

But why did all this happen? What was the official reason given by the Israel and the International community for not recognizing Hamas?

The reason they gave was that Hamas refused to recognize Israel and had a Charter calling for the destruction of the Jewish state.

Everyone (politicians and corporate media leaders) accepted this without asking a few important questions. Which Israel should Hamas recognize? Israel has not yet stated what its international borders are. Should Hamas recognize the Israel of 1948? The Israel of 1967? The Israel of 2009 with its apartheid wall, settlements (settlements building raised by 60 percent in 2008, the year of the Annapolis “Peace Process”, according to a Peace Now report), second class Arab citizens and with East Jerusalem annexed?

Any astute observer could also have objected by reminding people that Hamas (through Haniyeh and Meshal) had said many times over that it was willing to accept Israel as a political entity on the 1967 borders. You do not have to look hard for this, it was stated in the Guardian, Washington Post, amongst others, meaning that Hamas was now in line with most of the international community, accepting a two-state solution.

Another issue came back again and again. The problem is Hamas’s Charter, we would hear. Whatever Meshal or Haniyeh were ready to accept, the Charter came back to haunt them every time.

But what about the Charter of the Likud Party. With Netanyahu and his right-wing party ready to take over, it is only fair to find out a bit more about them.

In the "Peace and Security" chapter of the Likud Party platform, a recent document (1999) it says initially that:

"Peace is a primary objective of the State of Israel. The Likud will strengthen the existing peace agreements with the Arab states and strive to achieve peace agreements with all of Israel’s neighbors with the aim of reaching a comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict."

But then it says about settlements:

"The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."

Therefore annihilating the slightest chance of a two-state solution.

On Palestinian self-rule it says:

"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs."

Therefore annihilating any chance of seeing a Palestinian sovereign state.

On Jerusalem:

"Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem, including the plan to divide the city presented to the Knesset by the Arab factions and supported by many members of Labor and Meretz."

Therefore annihilating any chance for future peace negotiations because east Jerusalem as capital of a future Palestinian state is non-negotiable for any Palestinian.

We have therefore established that the Likud party charter does not recognize Palestine and will not accept a sovereign Palestinian state. The soon-to-come non-recognition of Likud by the international community and an implemented blockade on Israel should therefore not come as a surprise for Israelis.
Share:

Obama, Guantánamo, and US Hypocrisy


By Mickey Z.

Snapshots from the United States of Incarceration…

So, the Pope of Hope announced his (purported) objective of closing the military detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba (“Gitmo”) within one year and we’re expected to herald this announcement as a drastic break from the past.But—as some of the regulars on my blog instantly declared—if President Obama were serious about hope and change, he’d close the prison tomorrow, apologize to the detainees, and offer them financial reparations. That could be promptly followed up with the immediate indictment of all government officials (including those in Obama’s administration) responsible for supporting torture, secret prisons, extraordinary rendition, extrajudicial punishment, etc. And why not toss in the immediate closing of the US military base at Guantánamo Bay and the return of that land to Cuba? That, I submit, would be a minuscule first step upon which we could build.

***

Waiting a year to close a single prison is nothing to celebrate. Transferring those illegally detained humans is not change anyone can believe in. Public promises about not torturing have been heard before and even if we could trust such dubious assurances, why are we so goddamned appreciative when a US president merely declares his theoretical intention to think about adhering to fundamental international law?

The Chairman of Change has made no secret of how he wholeheartedly adores the bogus war on terror. Closing Gitmo (an act which still falls squarely into the believe-it-when-you-see-it category) is at best a strategic sidestep by a cautious and calculating new president.

***

A related New York Times piece began oh-so-cleverly: “Is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed coming to a prison near you?” In the Jan. 24, 2009 article—“Guantánamo Detainees? Not in My State,”—journalists (sic) Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane wrung their hands over the 245 remaining inmates being “released into quiet neighborhoods across the United States.” It’s illustrative of the utter depravity we tolerate as normal in the home of the brave that war criminals like Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, Dick Cheney, Wesley Clark, Colin Powell, Bill Clinton, etc. etc. walk freely among us while the newspaper of record preys on gullible readers with sensationalism and xenophobic fear mongering.

***

In that same Times article, Mazzetti and Shane inadvertently offered another manifestation of America’s cultural rot when they mentioned a discussion of reopening San Francisco’s Alcatraz Prison specifically for the assumed terrorists detained (illegally) at Gitmo. But a spokesman for California Senator Diane Feinstein was quick to clarify that Alcatraz was a “national park and tourist attraction, not a functioning prison,” and that the senator “does not consider it a suitable place to house detainees.”

I suggest you take a few seconds to contemplate the depth of moral vacuity it requires for a society to accept a former prison as a national park and tourist attraction. Alcatraz is not an ancient artifact that curious humans are lining up to explore but rather, it’s merely a inactive part of still fully active injustice system. More than one out of every 100 American adults is imprisoned in the land of the free while others plunk down cash to tour a prison?

***

As of December 31, 2007: 2,193,157 prisoners were held in Federal or State prisons or in local jails. That’s an estimated 506 prison inmates per 100,000 US residents. Breaking it down more specifically, there are…

*481 white male prison inmates per 100,000 white males in the US
*1,259 Hispanic male inmates per 100,000 Hispanic males
*3,138 black male inmates per 100,000 black males

(Of course, this doesn’t include all the dis-labeled folks locked in nursing homes against their will and the innumerable animals in laboratories, zoos, etc.)

As Angela Davis sez: “There’s always a tendency to push prisons to the fringes of our awareness [so] we don’t have to deal with what happens inside of these horrifying institutions.”

Take-home message: Gitmo is a symptom. Barack Obama is a symptom. Obama promising to close Gitmo is like placing a band-aid over a cancerous tumor.

Mickey Z. can be found on the Web at http://www.mickeyz.net
Share:

Washington's "humanitarian" hypocrisy


Lee Sustar argues that the U.S. government
has different standards for declaring a
humanitarian disaster--or determining
if its victims get help.




A DEVASTATING storm with winds in excess of 100 miles per hour sweeps in from the sea through a river delta region, leaving death and homelessness in its wake.

The impact is made far worse by the government's failure to have taken even elementary precautions or evacuated the population in a timely way. The nation's powerful military, with troops stationed nearby, does almost nothing to help, despite scenes of helpless survivors broadcast around the world.

Offers of assistance from neighboring countries are spurned by the incompetent leadership cabal in the capital, because the government is more concerned with projecting an image of self-sufficiency and conducting public relations than helping the suffering victims.

That was the shameful federal response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005--and it should be kept in mind if you hear White House officials criticizing the military junta in Myanmar for its failure to prepare for, or recover from, Cyclone Nargis, which has left an estimated 100,000 dead and hundreds of thousands homeless.

First Lady Laura Bush weighed in on the crisis at a rare news conference, declaring, "We already know that they are very inept"--an apt description of her husband's response to Katrina.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters, "What remains is for the Burmese [today called "Myanmar" by the country's military regime] government to allow the international community to help its people...It's not a matter of politics. It's a matter of a humanitarian crisis."

Obviously, Rice is correct that there is a humanitarian crisis. The repressive dictatorship in Myanmar, which shot dead scores of people to crush protests over rising food prices last fall, bears responsibility for much of the death toll. After failing to warn the population of the threat, it has been unable to provide food and shelter for those affected and unwilling to allow relief agencies to distribute the crisis.

Last weekend, the regime even went ahead with a national referendum designed to solidify its power--while survivors of the cyclone were still scrambling to put their lives back together.

But Rice and the U.S. political elite are utterly hypocritical in declaring that politics isn't involved in Washington's attempt to pressure Myanmar to accept aid. Where the U.S. is concerned, it's politics that determine whether people are "innocent victims" of repressive regimes, or populations whose lives are expendable if they get in the way of imperial aims.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THUS, EVEN as U.S. diplomats denounced the Myanmar junta for allowing innocent people to suffer and die for lack of aid, the U.S. military and its Iraqi government pawns were barricading, bombing and starving Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood.

According to CNN, "Weeks of fighting in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood have destroyed the main market and isolated civilians from supplies of food and water, the International Committee of the Red Cross warned. In addition, several hospitals in the predominantly Shiite neighborhood have run out of basic medical supplies, including anesthesia and dressings, the Red Cross said."

McClatchy Newspaper correspondents described a U.S. rocket attack that hit next door to a hospital in Sadr City on May 3: "A hospital official said that the explosion shattered all the windows and sent many doctors running from the building, leaving the emergency ward without enough personnel to deal with injury victims. Television footage showed several ambulances with shattered windows and hospital staff racing through corridors with bleeding victims strapped to gurneys."

The report noted that "the U.S. military is facing growing criticism over what residents describe as mounting civilian casualties in Sadr City, a densely populated slum of some 2.5 million people, which has seen heavy clashes over the past six weeks between U.S. and Iraqi forces and militiamen loyal to the hard-line Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr."

Moreover, while the U.S. condemns the Myanmar generals for interfering with humanitarian aid to a starving population, the U.S. fully backs Israel's criminal blockade of the Gaza Strip.

John Ging, director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in Gaza, described the situation April 30 in Britain's House of Commons:

Today, there is no solid waste collection in over 50 percent of the municipalities in Gaza, as there is no fuel for the rubbish trucks. Sixty thousand cubic meters of raw and partially treated sewage is pumped out to sea every day, again simply because the treatment plants have run out of fuel...The Costal Water Utility now reports that because of the regular power cuts and a lack of diesel for back-up generators, 30 percent of Gazans have running water for only four to eight hours per week, 40 percent once every four days and the remaining 30 percent every other day...

The economy has also collapsed as no raw materials for manufacturing or construction have been allowed into Gaza since June 2007. This has resulted in almost 80,000 people losing the dignity of work, bringing the number now queuing for UN food handouts to over 1 million...

All too often, solutions to the most pressing, basic and obvious humanitarian needs, if delivered at all, are delivered late and only after the inevitable crisis occurs. Ninety percent of Gaza's 3,900 industrial companies have closed since June 2007, resulting in 80 percent of Gazans now living below the poverty line.

Certainly, anyone with a shred of decency wants to see all necessary humanitarian aid to Myanmar delivered as quickly as possible. But do the residents of Gaza or Sadr City deserve any less?

No one should be under any illusions about the "humanitarian" aims of the U.S., which is only interested in dispensing aid if it furthers the reach of U.S. power. The words of revolutionary journalist John Reed, describing U.S. offers of food aid to impoverished countries following the First World War, still ring true today:

Uncle Sam is not one ever to give anybody something for nothing. He comes along with a sack stuffed with straw in one hand and a whip in the other. Whoever takes Uncle Sam's promises at their face value will find himself obliged to pay for them with blood and sweat.

Share: