Well, we did have a problem. We weren't permitted to vote for the best possible
candidate, even though the best possible candidate probably would have been
captured by , and been enslaved by, the existing system. At least he made some
effort to fight against it, feeble though that effort was.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 1:28 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: In Gaza, Israel Aims To Massacre Hope
Miriam, You put your finger right on the problem when you wrote:
"Like every other politician, he's worried about his career, his donors, the
powerful elites, and not the people."
Of course by, "the people", you are not referring to the truly wealthy people.
They have the ear, and the wallets of the politicians. It's all the rest of us
People who have no representation. We are called out to vote, but the choices
we're given are candidates from a pool of candidates who can be at least
manipulated by the Ruling Class.
In effect, we have no power in the running of this nation. But instead of
joining together and "draining the Swamp", a large number flip out and vote for
the absolute worst candidate possible. And now we're all stuck with him and
his Pirateers.
Carl Jarvis
On 4/6/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, the problem is that the system is so corrupted and everyone, in
order to survive, has to cooperate with the system in one way or
another. So eventually, everyone becomes tarnished. The mayor of New
York City, who started out as a left wing reformer, has been, more and
more, giving into pressure from the NYPD. So you heard on Democracy
Now today, how he agreed with the Police Benevolent Association that a
man who was imprisoned at age 25, has been in jail for 40 years, has
become a model citizen, and has finally been recommended for parole,
should not be paroled. De Blazio tangled with the Police once when he
was first elected, and then lost his nerve. Like every other
politician, he's worried about his career, his donors, the powerful elites,
and not the people.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 11:15 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: In Gaza, Israel Aims To Massacre Hope
Miriam,
Between our cold shoulder to Palestine, and to Yemen, and to our
sucking up to the Prince and Saudi Arabia, I can find no compassion in
my heart for those so called Leaders in our government, who continue
to advocate the funding of the violence in the middle east. And that
goes for All past administrations that bloodied their hands. I'm
going to be hard pressed to find names to vote for in future national
elections.
Carl Jarvis
On 4/5/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I listened to an interview with Miko Peled on Clearing The Fog. He
is, if you remember his appearance on Democracy Now, the son of an
Israeli general who eventually became an advocate for Palestinian
rights and who emigrated to the US. He wrote The General's Son, which
is on Bookshare, and recently, another book about how the US unjustly
prosecuted and imprisoned the American Muslims who ran The Holy Land
Foundation. What is most interesting to me is that he now is saying
something that few Jewish people will say and that is, "There is no
justification for Israel". To almost everyone, that is a blasphemy
because no matter what sins Israel commits, in most people's minds,
its justification is The Holocaust. Of course, Israel was envision by
Zionists before the Nazis existed. A phrase in Jewish prayer is,
"Next year in Israel". I don't know what that signifies because I
don't know much about the Jewish religion. But aside from that, in
the 19th century, some European Jews were emigrating to Israel to
avoid anti-semitism in Europe. Miko Peled pointed out that however
much one's ancestors have suffered, their suffering doesn't give one
the right to engage in ethnic cleansing. But what percentage of
American Jews would agree with his statement? One of the most
obnoxious speeches I've recently heard was in a video of Senator
Schumer talking to a Jewish audience in Brooklyn. Talk about treason!
One wonders of which country he is a citizen, the US or Israel.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 1:24 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: In Gaza, Israel Aims To Massacre Hope
I've always been of the opinion that Israel never planned to live in
peace with Palestine. Just as the Europeans who fled poverty and
religious persecution never wanted to live with the Indigenous
People on this continent and took freely the land that spread to the
West, so Israel will continue to take land as if it is their God given right.
But I do not believe that religion has any major part to play here.
Israel is simply following the age old pattern of taking that which
they are able to take. It's called Conquest.
Carl Jarvis
On 4/4/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In Gaza, Israel Aims To Massacre Hope
As the notion of a two-state agreement fades firmly into history,
the apartheid reality becomes impossible to ignore.
by
Yousef Munayyer
"Israel is well equipped to deal with violence but it fumbles every
interaction with non-violent dissent because these interactions
thrust Israel's policies ― policies that deny basic rights ― onto
center stage."
(Photo: Ma'an News Agency)
In late May of 2010, Israeli naval commandos descended onto a
flotilla of six small civilian boats that aim to break the blockade
of the Gaza Strip and bring humanitarian supplies to the besieged
enclave. Nine civilians, eight Turks and one American citizen, were
massacred. It sparked a diplomatic crisis as well as a public
relations disaster for Israel. One of the key lessons Israel took
from the event, and indeed a focus of its government's investigative
report, was not that Israel should not have massacred the civilians,
but rather that it should have done a better job of explaining why
it did so.
So early last week, well before demonstrators began to amass in Gaza
for a planned protest, I could see how Israel was laying the
foundation for the massacre to come, describing the march as a
Hamas-organized event aimed at violent provocation. In the days
before, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs circulated talking
points preemptively framing the event as violent, dangerous, a cover
for terror activity and an exploitation of civilians.
The
Israeli military sent 100 snipers down to the fence between Gaza and
Israel.
The stage was set for a massacre and this time, the Israelis may
have thought they sufficiently prepared an international audience to
justify it ahead of time.
By the time the sun had set on Friday in Gaza, 17 Palestinians were
killed and hundreds of others were wounded by live ammunition.
Videos emerged of unarmed protesters dodging bullets before
ultimately being gunned down.
International condemnations would follow, as would an emergency
session of the United Nations Security Council to address the issue.
Once again, Israel had used lethal force against unarmed protesters,
even as Israeli soldiers faced no imminent threat. Indeed, no
Israeli soldiers were injured during the events. And it is hard to
imagine how they could be.
These are soldiers armed to the hilt and positioned atop dunes or in
armored vehicles, behind a fence as well, firing at Palestinians
from a great distance. Even if a Palestinian was throwing a stone,
the chances that under these conditions such an act could cause an
imminent threat to life ― the only situation that would justify the
use of lethal force under international law ― are infinitesimal.
Indeed, even if Palestinians were trying to climb the fence, that
would not give Israel the right to use lethal force.
Why does Israel keep finding itself in these situations with the
Palestinians? Some will argue that the Jewish state is in the
impossible position of constantly balancing efforts to maintain its
security without creating another public relations disaster. The
truth is, Israel keeps finding itself in these situations because of
the ongoing denial of basic rights to millions of Palestinians. This
march in Gaza was a demonstration against Israel's policy of encagement.
Pluralistic democracies that respect human rights do not find
themselves resorting to using lethal force against demonstrators.
That's what apartheid states do. But Israel has sold itself to the
world as something else, a beacon of liberalism and democracy. Few
things expose this image as a sham as well as massive non-violent
mobilizations or civil disobedience.
More than the atrocities committed or the condemnations that
followed, perhaps the most important and also inspirational element
of the events of last Friday was the demonstrations themselves. Tens
of thousands of Palestinians congregated in disciplined, organized
demonstrations at various points along the fence of the besieged
Gaza Strip. People of all ages joined, songs were sung, meals were
cooked, pick-up volleyball games were played. All of this,
importantly, was done as a unified Palestinian front.
Despite Israel's efforts to slap a Hamas label on it, the only
visible flags were Palestinian, not factional. For Palestinians,
this was a vision that brought us together with great hope.
These types of events are Israel's nightmare, not because they are
violent, but precisely because they are not. Israel is well equipped
to deal with violence but it fumbles every interaction with
non-violent dissent because these interactions thrust Israel's
policies ― policies that deny basic rights ― onto center stage. That
is why the Israeli government tried to frame the event as violent
before it took place, so it could brutally crack down and dissuade
Palestinians from organizing such events again.
Happening on Land Day, which commemorates the massacre of
Palestinian citizens of Israel by Israeli forces during a protest
against land confiscation in the Galilee in 1976, the march was an
effort to assert the rights of Palestinians in Gaza in a way that
tied all Palestinians together.
Israel, since it's inception, has relied on external support,
particularly from the Western world, for justification of its
policies in Gaza and the West Bank. These relationships are
contingent on many things, including values the West claims to hold
dear like freedom, democracy, civil rights and equality. The
prospect of a negotiated agreement based on two-states has allowed
Israel to stave off the confrontation between the myth of these
values and the reality on the ground.
But as the notion of a two-state agreement fades firmly into
history, the apartheid reality becomes impossible to ignore, and
further episodes where Israel will confront masses of mobilized
Palestinians demanding their rights will continue to highlight this
contradiction.
It is now incumbent on the international community to encourage
Palestinian non-violent dissent and civil disobedience, to condemn
Israel's violent repression and then hold it accountable for such
violations of law. The massacre of protesters in Gaza this past week
was Palestine's version of the Sharpeville Massacre that happened
almost exactly 58 years ago in South Africa.
The international community responded then with condemnation,
beginning a process that included an arms embargo and ultimately led
to the end of the apartheid system. How the international community
responds to this event in Gaza and ones surely to come will
determine how much longer Israel will be able to get away with its
separate and unequal rule over Palestinians.
© 2018 Huffington Post
