US policy contradiction
Last Thursday a Thai worker was killed by a rocket from Gaza fired at an Israeli village Nativ Ha'asarah near Ashkelon. Three rockets were fired that day. Just because you don't hear about them in your news you should know that rockets are fired frequently and randomly, and it only make news if someone is hurt or killed. Can someone explain to me why the plan to build 1600 housing units in a Jewish neighborhood of Jerusalem is more newsworthy than the continual bombardment of rockets into Israel.
It is said that the rockets are not being fired by Hamas operatives from Gaza, but by a new group called Ansar al-Sunnah, or followers of the Sunnah, in other words a militant Sunni group affiliated with al Qaeda. The significance of this is that they are not associated with Hamas which is supported by Iran, which is Shia. There have been military clashes between Hamas and al Qaeda groups in Gaza, which is merely an indication of the fact that it is a terrorist's paradise.
Secty Gen of the UN Ban ki-Moon issued another statement from Gaza Sunday urging Israel to stop the blockade of Gaza, supposedly because people there are suffering. It is not clear that this is really true because they are able to import most goods via the hundreds of tunnels that honeycomb the sand below the Gaza-Egypt border. But, even if his contention is true, why should Israel suffer by opening itself to this terrorist's nest. Would you?
Meanwhile PM Netanyahu and his entourage is on the way to the US for the AIPAC Conference in Washington and meetings with US officials, probably including Pres. Obama (he was supposed to be visiting Indonesia, another of his favorite Muslin States, but because he stayed to see out the Health Care vote, he now may have to meet with Netanyahu). Both sides have been moving to overcome the stupid fracas over the building situation. But, I am confused. Both Obama and Secty of State Clinton are on record as wanting immediate indirect negotiations (proximity talks) thru Sen. Mitchell without preconditions.
Now this is strange, because Obama forced Netanyahu to accept a freeze on building in the West Bank, which they said was "unprecedented" and had accepted Netanyahu's contention that he could NOT include East Jerusalem in that freeze. But after the mistake of the Israeli announcement of further building in east (actually north) Jerusalem during VP Biden's visit, they made a big fuss and have now tried to once again force Israel to make a further concession to the Palestinians. So correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a freeze on West Bank building a precondition, and isn't a freeze on East Jerusalem building a futher precondition. The Arabs have no building freezes or preconditions, they can build when and where they like (and in fact are beginning to build a new Palestinian city near Ramallah called Rawabi), only Israel must accept these one-sided biased preconditions, that contradict the Obama Administration's declared policy of NO preconditions! Yes, I know it is very confusing, but don't ask me, ask Obama/Clinton why there is this contradiction in US policy?
It is said that the rockets are not being fired by Hamas operatives from Gaza, but by a new group called Ansar al-Sunnah, or followers of the Sunnah, in other words a militant Sunni group affiliated with al Qaeda. The significance of this is that they are not associated with Hamas which is supported by Iran, which is Shia. There have been military clashes between Hamas and al Qaeda groups in Gaza, which is merely an indication of the fact that it is a terrorist's paradise.
Secty Gen of the UN Ban ki-Moon issued another statement from Gaza Sunday urging Israel to stop the blockade of Gaza, supposedly because people there are suffering. It is not clear that this is really true because they are able to import most goods via the hundreds of tunnels that honeycomb the sand below the Gaza-Egypt border. But, even if his contention is true, why should Israel suffer by opening itself to this terrorist's nest. Would you?
Meanwhile PM Netanyahu and his entourage is on the way to the US for the AIPAC Conference in Washington and meetings with US officials, probably including Pres. Obama (he was supposed to be visiting Indonesia, another of his favorite Muslin States, but because he stayed to see out the Health Care vote, he now may have to meet with Netanyahu). Both sides have been moving to overcome the stupid fracas over the building situation. But, I am confused. Both Obama and Secty of State Clinton are on record as wanting immediate indirect negotiations (proximity talks) thru Sen. Mitchell without preconditions.
Now this is strange, because Obama forced Netanyahu to accept a freeze on building in the West Bank, which they said was "unprecedented" and had accepted Netanyahu's contention that he could NOT include East Jerusalem in that freeze. But after the mistake of the Israeli announcement of further building in east (actually north) Jerusalem during VP Biden's visit, they made a big fuss and have now tried to once again force Israel to make a further concession to the Palestinians. So correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a freeze on West Bank building a precondition, and isn't a freeze on East Jerusalem building a futher precondition. The Arabs have no building freezes or preconditions, they can build when and where they like (and in fact are beginning to build a new Palestinian city near Ramallah called Rawabi), only Israel must accept these one-sided biased preconditions, that contradict the Obama Administration's declared policy of NO preconditions! Yes, I know it is very confusing, but don't ask me, ask Obama/Clinton why there is this contradiction in US policy?
posted by Jack Cohen at 1:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home