[Peace] Saturdays Flier

[Brussel Morton K.]

Comments follow.
On Feb 4, 2009, at 6:51 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> There's no doubt that the attack on Gaza was done with US permission  
> (and would not have been done without it).

What is your evidence (not inference)?

> The Bush administration had withheld permission for an attack on  
> Lebanon until the summer of 2006, and they pointedly released the  
> information that they had withheld permission for an attack on Iran.

Yes, the U.S could have stopped it (if it knew what was to happen and  
wanted to stop it), but this is not equivalent in my view to saying  
that it gave its permission. How do you know whether permission was  
asked? It may have simply informed the U.S. that it was going to act,  
and the U.S. could have indicated that  "It's your affair"? I don't  
believe that everything Israel does requires U.S. permission. In any  
case, I don't think the permission word strengthens the pamphlet for  
its intended audience.
>
> And the suppression of the Palestinians is a central part of the US  
> war in the ME. Some say it's the central point.  Al-Qaeda said that  
> its 9/11/2001 attacks in the US were reprisals for (1) US troops in  
> Saudi Arabia; (2) sanctions against Iraq; and (3) the suppression of  
> the Palestinians.

So far as I know, the U.S. has not declared war on Gaza or the West  
Bank. That its policy is to weaken or destroy Hamas via its Israeli  
client is not quite the same thing. I simply found the statement is  
too imprecise, too blunderbuss.
>
> The US support for the suppression of the Palestinians -- i.e., US  
> rejection of the two-state solution -- is not just a favor to the  
> Israelis. A truly independent Palestinian state would surely be  
> another opponent to US domination of the region (one reason that  
> right-wing Arab governments are at best lukewarm supporters of the  
> Palestinians).
>
> US support for Israel -- so strong that some think the control runs  
> the other way (cf. tail/dog) -- exists because of Israel's crucial  
> aid in US foreign policy, ever since their defeat of secular Arab  
> nationalism in 1967.  The "stationary aircraft carrier" as Chomsky  
> says received weapons shipments during the Gaza assault that were  
> being positioned for use elsewhere in the ME, as they regularly  
> are.  --CGE

Yes, but not relevant to my objections.
I just think that the pamphlet would be more effective andno less true  
without those words. You are free to disagree.

--mkb

>
>
> Brussel Morton K. wrote:
>> My taste would be to omit the words in the heading:
>> */Permission/ *
>> and the phrase
>> *as Part of the US War in the Middle East** *
>> I don't know whether permission was actually requested, although  
>> the U.S. may have been informed and did nothing.
>> The "U.S. war in the Middle East" arguably does not literally  
>> encompass the Palestinians or even Hamas, despite our government's  
>> antagonisms and/or unconcern, and despite what our client there  
>> does. Apologies for replying at this late date.
>> --mkb
>> On Feb 4, 2009, at 9:27 AM, David Harley wrote:
>>> If this meets general approval I will have it printed.
>>> <Gazaposter4.pdf>_______________________________________________
>>> Peace mailing list
>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace at lists.chambana.net>
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace mailing list
>> Peace at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace