I have exhaled

Around 7 PM on Oct. 30th,

David Nelson-VanDette,

Florida Director, Mike Gravel for President

DavidFlorida@gravel2008.us

Phoned me and heard me out.

He explained my issues aren't the Senators

[YET?]

 

But we both already do agree on the Fair Tax:

 

by Eileen Fleming (146 articles, 51 quicklinks, 266 diaries, 580 comments) on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 8:33:12 PM
 

trying again to post these links

 Check it out:

 

by Eileen Fleming (146 articles, 51 quicklinks, 266 diaries, 580 comments) on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 8:35:33 PM
 

something screwy

The system is loosing the links -

 

maybe this will work?

Americans For Fair Taxation: FairTax.org

 

The National Initiative for Democracy

 

 

by Eileen Fleming (146 articles, 51 quicklinks, 266 diaries, 580 comments) on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 8:38:08 PM
 

Crazy Irish Person!

Ms Fleming,  I would strongly suggest you stick to the subject when you are talking to one of the two realistic candidates we have so far.  Your Israelaphobia seems to get the better of you.  Considering Mr Gravels stands on most everything he has discussed when it comes time to discuss Israel I think you will like what he has to say.  At the moment he is fighting to just get on the Democratic primary ballots and big brothers are trying to squash him.  I am Scotch-Irish and you do need to keep your Irish under better control.

by Hayesml47 (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 471 comments) on Thursday, November 1, 2007 at 9:22:51 AM
 

As Gravel said:

"I am angry! And if you have a heart you would be angry too!"

 

I have been to OPT 5 times in 2 yrs. and I am FLAMING angry at the "supine Congress"-Gravel's words

 

The apathy of Americans who claim to be Christians over the human rights abuses of Israel-which is NOT a democracy, but an Ethnocracy

 

And yet, being a Christian I always have HOPE for change and

 

"HOPE has two children. The first is ANGER at the way things are. The second is COURAGE to DO SOMETHING about it."-St. Augustine

 

e 

 

by Eileen Fleming (146 articles, 51 quicklinks, 266 diaries, 580 comments) on Thursday, November 1, 2007 at 9:47:40 AM
 

Angry?

Yeah, I am angry too!  I have a heart and a brain.  I find it rather silly to use one without consulting the other.  Try finding a group that does not violate human rights in that area or the rest of the world for that matter.  Our country is fast becoming a theocracy, as you call it.  A radical, terroristic right-wing "Christian" theocracy.  This country over the last 7 years has violated more human rights than Israel ever could.  That is why I do not think it is pertinant to shove Israel in Gravels face when we have far more pressing problems here at home.  Once we get(If we can!) our house in order then we can look into others transgressions.  It is rather ignorant and arrogant to go pointing fingers at others when we ourselves are the worst on this planet.

by Hayesml47 (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 471 comments) on Thursday, November 1, 2007 at 8:29:45 PM
 

dear hayes

Don't you understand why our country is in such bad shape?

It is the neo-con ideology fueled by the neo-Christain Zionist base that is at the root of the drive for theocracy.

 

Don't you understand that Israel's 40 yr. Military Occupation supported by OVER 100 BILLION USA TAX DOLLARS since 1948, and over 1.25 million per mile for the Apartheid Wall, on top of the following few facts on the ground from IFAMERICANSKNEW are at the root of the mess our country is in and why so many people in the world do NOT trust USA govt?

 

Israel has been targeted by at least 65 UN resolutions and the Palestinians have been targeted by none

 

Aside from the core issues—refugees, Jerusalem, borders—the major themes reflected in the U.N. resolutions against Israel over the years are its unlawful attacks on its neighbors; its violations of the human rights of the Palestinians, including deportations, demolitions of homes and other collective punishments; its confiscation of Palestinian land; its establishment of illegal settlements; and its refusal to abide by the U.N. Charter and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.- Donald Neff

On Sept. 10, 1972, the United States employed its veto for the second time—to shield Israel.1 That veto, as it turned out, signalled the start of a cynical policy to use the U.S. veto repeatedly to shield Israel from international criticism, censure and sanctions.

Washington used its veto 32 times to shield Israel from critical draft resolutions between 1972 and 1997. This constituted nearly half of the total of 69 U.S. vetoes cast since the founding of the U.N. The Soviet Union cast 115 vetoes during the same period.2

The initial 1972 veto to protect Israel was cast by George Bush [Sr.] in his capacity as U.S. ambassador to the world body. Ironically, it was Bush as president who temporarily stopped the use of the veto to shield Israel 18 years later. The last such veto was cast on May 31, 1990, it was thought, killing a resolution approved by all 14 other council members to send a U.N. mission to study Israeli abuses of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Then President Bill Clinton came along and cast three more.

The rationale for casting the first veto to protect Israel was explained by Bush at the time as a new policy to combat terrorists. The draft resolution had condemned Israel’s heavy air attacks against Lebanon and Syria, starting Sept. 6, the day after 11 Israeli athletes were killed at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games in an abortive Palestinian attempt to seize them as hostages to trade for Palestinians in Israeli prisons.3 Between 200 and 500 Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinians, mostly civilians, were killed in the Israeli raids.4

Nonetheless, Bush complained that the resolution had failed to condemn terrorist attacks against Israel, adding: “We are implementing a new policy that is much broader than that of the question of Israel and the Jews. What is involved is the problem of terrorism, a matter that goes right to the heart of our civilized life.”5

Unfortunately, this “policy” proved to be only a rationale for protecting Israel from censure for violating a broad range of international laws. This became very clear when the next U.S. veto was cast a year later, on July 26, 1973. It had nothing to do with terrorism. The draft resolution affirmed the rights of the Palestinians and established provisions for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories as embodied in previous General Assembly resolutions.6 Nonetheless, Washington killed this international effort to end Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands.

Washington used the veto four more times in 1975-76 while Henry Kissinger was secretary of state. One of these vetoes arguably may have involved terrorism, since the draft condemned Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians in response to attacks on Israel. But the three other vetoes had nothing at all to do with terrorism.

One, in fact, struck down a draft resolution that reflected U.S. policy against Israel’s alteration of the status of Jerusalem and establishment of Jewish settlements in occupied territory. Only two days earlier, U.S. Ambassador William W. Scranton had given a speech in the United Nations calling Israeli settlements illegal and rejecting Israel’s claim to all of Jerusalem.7 Yet on March 25, 1976, the U.S. vetoed a resolution reflecting Scranton’s positions which had been passed unanimously by the other 14 members of the council.8

The two other vetoes during Kissinger’s reign also were cast in 1976. One, on Jan. 26, killed a draft resolution calling for recognition of the right of self-determination for Palestinians. The other, on June 29, called for affirmation of the “inalienable rights” of the Palestinians.9

The Carter administration cast only one veto. But it had nothing to do with terrorism. It came on April 30, 1980, killing a draft that endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people.10

The all-time abuser of the veto was the administration of Ronald Reagan, the most pro-Israel presidency in U.S. history, with the most pro-Israel secretary of state, George Shultz, since Kissinger. The Reagan team cynically invoked the veto 18 times to protect Israel. A record six of these vetoes were cast in 1982 alone. Nine of the Reagan vetoes resulted directly from Security Council attempts to condemn Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, and Israel’s refusal to surrender the territory in southern Lebanon which it still occupies today. The other nine vetoes shielded Israel from council criticism for such illicit acts as the Feb. 4, 1986, skyjacking of a Libyan plane.11

Israeli warplanes forced the executive jet to land in Israel, allegedly in an effort to capture Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal. He was not aboard and, after interrogation, the passengers were allowed to leave.12 The U.S. delegate explained that this act of piracy was excusable “because we believe that the ability to take such action in carefully defined and limited circumstances is an aspect of the inherent right of self-defense recognized in the U.N. Charter.”13

Other vetoes employed on Israel’s exclusive behalf included the Jan. 20, 1982 killing of a demand that Israel withdraw from the Golan Heights it had occupied in 196714; the April 20, 1982 condemnation of an Israeli soldier who shot 11 Muslim worshippers at the Haram Al-Sharif in the Old City of Jerusalem15; the Feb. 1, 1988 call for Israel to stop violating Palestinian human rights in the occupied territories, abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and formalize a leading role for the United Nations in future peace negotiations16; the April 15, 1988 resolution requesting that Israel permit the return of expelled Palestinians, condemning Israel’s shooting of civilians, calling on Israel to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention and calling for a peace settlement under U.N. auspices.17

The Bush [Sr.] administration used the veto four times to protect Israel: on Feb. 17, 1989, to kill a draft strongly deploring Israel’s repression of the Palestinian uprising and calling on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians18; on June 9, 1989, deploring Israel’s violation of the human rights of the Palestinians19; on Nov. 7, 1989, demanding Israel return property confiscated from Palestinians during a tax protest and calling on Israel to allow a fact-finding mission to observe Israel’s suppression tactics against the Palestinian uprising20; and, finally, on May 31, 1990, calling for a fact-finding mission on abuses against Palestinians in Israeli-occupied lands.21

The May 31, 1990 veto was the last, presumably, as the result of a secret understanding, if not an official agreement, with Russia and the three other Security Council members with veto power. By then it had become obvious that the council could not be effective in a post-Cold War world if Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States recklessly invoked their vetoes.

Moreover, the international alliances sought by Washington to repel Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in August, 1990 made it necessary for the Bush administration to retain unity in the Security Council. As a result, instead of abstaining on or vetoing resolutions critical of Israel, as it did in 1989 and the first half of 1990, the Bush administration abruptly joined other members in late 1990, 1991 and 1992 in passing six resolutions deploring or strongly condemning Israel’s conduct against the Palestinians.22

These resolutions brought the total passed by the council against Israel since its birth to 68. If the United States had not invoked its veto, the record against Israel would total 100 resolutions condemning or otherwise criticizing its behavior or supporting the rights of Palestinians.

The agreement on vetoes held until March, 1995, when President Clinton invoked the veto after all 14 other members approved a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on Israel to rescind a decision to expropriate 130 acres of land in Arab East Jerusalem.23 The Clinton administration exercised two more vetoes in 1997, both of them on resolutions otherwise unanimously supported by the 14 other Security Council members. The draft resolution was critical of Israel’s plans to establish a new settlement at Har Homa ⁄ Jabal Abu Ghneim in East Jerusalem in the midst of Palestinian housing.24

The three Clinton vetoes brought to 32 the number Washington has cast to protect Israel.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the world’s major sources of instability. Americans are directly connected to this conflict, and increasingly imperiled by its devastation. It is the goal of "If Americans Knew" to provide full and accurate information on this critical issue with the desire to bring a resolution:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

 

by Eileen Fleming (146 articles, 51 quicklinks, 266 diaries, 580 comments) on Thursday, November 1, 2007 at 10:27:53 PM
 

Phobias

It would appear that your Israeliphobia has overtaken your Islamiphobia!  Israel has no where near the powers you are trying to show.  The military industrial complex are the major ones to be fearing and to them Israel is just a forward outpost with which to prod the Middle East when they want a new war.  You have not looked deep enough to find the real enemies.  Do not forget the old Pogo adage "We have met the enemy and it is us!".

by Hayesml47 (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 471 comments) on Friday, November 2, 2007 at 6:55:06 AM
 

PHOBIA???

I have BEEN to Israel Palestine five times in 2 years!

 Someone with a:

"Israeliphobia, Islamiphobia"

 

WOULD NEVER HAVE DONE WHAT I HAVE!

 

Your wall of denial to what I have actually written appears unpenetrable,

but we certainly agree  with Pogo:

"We have seen the enemy and he is U.S."

Eileen Fleming, Reporter and Editor
Http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Author "Keep Hope Alive" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"
Producer "30 Minutes With Vanunu."

 

by Eileen Fleming (146 articles, 51 quicklinks, 266 diaries, 580 comments) on Friday, November 2, 2007 at 7:53:36 AM