Miriam,
Your tale of woe sounds very similar to mine. Only the details have
been changed to protect the innocent.
I, too began smoking at the age of 15. Five cigarettes a day. By 18
I was smoking about half a pack, and my dad startled me by offering me
a cigarette. "Go ahead", he told me, "We know you smoke, so you might
as well do it in front of us". That was on my 18TH birthday. A week
later Dad quit for the final time. Mother never smoked. We didn't
know about "second hand smoke" back then.
Addiction has many clever ways of protecting itself. I always claimed
that I never smoked more than a pack per day. So I went from standard
cigarettes to King Size cigarettes and onto the extra long filters
that I could smoke right down to the last bit of tobacco. And I
cheated, too. Whenever I went out for the night, I made certain that
I had a fresh pack in my pocket...just in case. And of course that
pack somehow got opened.
I quit so many times that I couldn't remember if I was smoking, or
not. Once I quit for a full year. And even worse than that, I quit
for five years...and began all over again. A friend asked me, "Why do
you keep doing the hard part?" But the addiction was so cunning that
I always got suckered in. "Just one cigarette with this glass of
beer", I would tell myself. "I'll give the rest of the pack away".
Ha! And because I think of myself as being slightly on the cheap
side, for years I bought cigarettes by the pack rather than by the
carton, because I didn't want to waste the rest of the carton if I
were to suddenly quit.
So in 1991 Cathy and I headed to our cabin on Labor Day weekend, armed
with 3 cigarettes each. Cathy never did suffer the strong addiction
that I did, but she usually smoked about 3 cigarettes each evening
after she got home from work. Well, long story short, we survived
that 3 days. So did our marriage. But for months afterward I would
have to think of taking a "butt can", filled with nasty cigarette
stubs and stinking water, and pretend to bring it up to my lips. I
never had to go as far as pretending to drink the juice, but
close...so very close.
Even after 3 years I would dream that I was sneaking a smoke. I'd
suddenly have in my hand a fresh pack of smokes, freshly opened.
Finally I came to be free of both the physical addiction and the
psychological hold that the nicotine held over me.
And now, with no signs of lung cancer, heart disease or other ailments
caused by the use of this legal poison, I am able to turn my normally
forgiving heart to the task of Damning the Tobacco Industry at every
opportunity offered...and many that I create myself.
While I do not condemn the victims, and I understand the struggle they
will undergo should they decide to kick the habit, I have abject
hatred for those who continue to allow this crippling death to be sold
openly to a public that the very industry works overtime to condition
so they will also become addicts.
As far as I'm concerned, our great "War on Drugs" was a farce aimed at
rounding up cheap labor for our slave prisons. If we were serious, we
would have hauled in all the tobacco users, White and Colored alike.
And of course there is the problem of alcohol
addiction. Still, if our Empire needs more cheap labor than just our
prisoners of Color, there is an over abundance of White drunks to be
drawn from.
Well, I'll take my tongue out of my cheek and simply close by saying,
I not only hate the tobacco industry, I also hate people who believe
they can lie to me and get away with it. Oh, I guess that's
redundant.
Carl Jarvis
On 1/1/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl,
I began smoking at 15 years of age. My 2 best friends smoked. My father
said, "Ok, I'll give you this cigarette case with 3 cigarettes a day at no
cost. Sstay within that limit and it won't cost you anything". But my 2
friends invariably ran out of cigarettes and borrowed one or two of my
three
a day limit. So before I knew it, I was buying packs of cigarettes and
smoking more and more of them. After all, all the glamorous actresses in
the
movies I watched, smoked them. My mother walked around with a cigarette
hanging out of her mouth. I stopped smoking the first time, with great
difficulty, when I was 30 years old, and immediately gained a lot of
weight.
Then, several years later, I went on a trip to Spain. It was a vacation
from
all my family responsibilities. When I returned, I wanted to hold onto a
bit
of this vacation-like feeling. I thought that if I could just have a glass
of sherry and a cigarette before preparing dinner each night, that would be
like a mini vacation from routine. At first, the cigarettes tasted
terrible.
But very quickly, I was hooked and the number I was smoking increased
rapidly. But by then, smoking was unacceptable in most places and many
people disapproved. One paid a social price for it as well as having to
find
somewhere , where it was OK to do it. Within a very short time, Fred was in
the hospital, dying of terminal cancer. He asked me to promise him that I
would stop smoking immediately and never start again. Simultaneously, I
developed a very bad cold and was coughing all the time so I really
couldn't
smoke. That was in 1985. It was the end of my smoking, early spring of
1985. But I'll tell you something interesting about my addiction to
nicotine. The physical addiction, both times I stopped, was gone within 2
weeks. It was the psychological addiction that was so hard to break.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2017 2:23 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Obama's Support for International Law Draws
Bipartisan Ire
Miriam,
Cathy had it just the opposite. The first attempt was to remove the tumor.
Cervical cancer. It returned. Then began some 32 sessions of radiation,
ending with a cesium implant. She was between 39 and 41 when this all went
on. This year she will become 65, so it worked.
But the damage the radiation left behind is something she'll have to live
with the rest of her life.
It is as if the radiation burn never heals. And when it acts up it is like
the worst intestinal flu you could imagine. It might last a couple of
hours
or a couple of days. And we won't even talk about what it does to a
woman's
sex life.
There are other side effects, but that gives a general idea of the quality
of our "Life Saving" treatment. Funny we've gotten better and better at
killing people, but not much improved in saving the quality of life over
these past 25 years.
What angers me even more than the rudimentary radiation treatments, is the
fact that the Tobacco Corporations are still in business and have never
received one small token of punishment for the countless millions of
murdered and maimed lives over the centuries.
Even assuming that our forefathers were too ignorant to believe that
sucking
raw smoke into their lungs was harmful to their health, they still did not
know that the nicotine they were ingesting was terribly addictive. When I
was first experimenting with cigarettes back in the late 40's, we pretty
much knew that tobacco was not good for our health. But no one told me of
how addictive it would be. For years I believed that I was simply weak
willed. And it's funny, now that I look back. I was never addicted to
alcohol or any of the soft drinks.
Sure, I knew I was a chocoholic, but even that was something I could
manage.
But not cigarettes. The industry allowed me, and countless millions of
others, to believe it was we who were the problem. I remember a 60 Minute
segment many years ago. The tobacco farmer was standing in his field of
beautiful tobacco leaves, telling the reporter that he had to grow tobacco
because he had to support his family. My initial sympathy turned to anger
as I thought of this man, willing to put millions of lives at risk, just to
protect his own family. I looked at my wife and small daughter and asked
myself if I could stand by and watch people die or suffer because of the
sort of work I did. I wanted to believe that I could never make that sort
of trade off.
But today I would haul everyone who still peddles the Devil's Weed, and
fine
and imprison them. I would turn the tobacco fields into hemp fields and
subsidize those farmers willing to raise hemp. Those farmers and other
tobacco workers, along with the CEO's who refused to change, I would send
to
India, where they could breathe the polluted air that is killing
children...or maybe Mexico City.
And if they refused any of my "cures", I'd put them on that first space
ship
to Mars.
Carl Jarvis
On 1/1/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, there's radiation treatments for cancer. But having undergonemanufactured by huge corporations.
them, I'm not convinced they helped. Statistically, they were supposed
to prevent a recurrence. They didn't. And They literally burn you more
and more, as they progress. So that's the peaceful use of nuclear
energy. In New York, our corporate Democratic governor is wanting to
tax people and companies who use clean energy systems, in order to pay
the costs for maintaining our outdated nuclear plants. So there's the
other peaceful use of nuclear energy, not just the waste, but the fact
that these things become outdated, leak, and cause havoc in natural
disasters. But even though we know this, it doesn't matter because of
the profits. The tobacco industry, the fossil fuel industry, the
nuclear industry, none of those who profit financially, care about the
human costs.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2017 11:28 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Obama's Support for International Law
Draws Bipartisan Ire
Miriam, while I agree with your statement, "The only human inventions
that aren't neutral, are weapons", I do recall the PR that went out
following our dropping of two Atomic Bombs on Japan. We learned, by
our government's proclamation, that Atomic Energy would now be used
for Peace Time Purposes, making life better for all Mankind. Wow!
I'm still waiting after 71 years. But my point is that we, the
American People, mostly bought this PR campaign.
Today, in my opinion, it appears as if we have let the Evil Genie out
of the bottle, and we don't know what to do with Him, or how to put
Him back in the bottle. Wouldn't you have thought that before the
first reactor was built that we would have devised a means of
harmlessly eliminating the waste?
But the Greed Driven Profiteers grabbing everything in sight, do with
the waste reactor product, the same as they do with the rubble left
behind by their mining or logging ventures. They "allow" the people
to stand the cost of cleanup. But this new waste is far too dangerous
for the People to handle. And even so, we seldom do anything to those
responsible for the waste. And now we come up with Cyber Space! God
only knows how that will come back to bite us.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/31/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, the problem with each new technology, is the use to which it isinternet.
put.
So it's human nature that determines what we do with a car or the
The only human inventions that aren't neutral, are weapons.the Woods"
miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl
Jarvis
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2016 10:43 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Obama's Support for International Law
Draws Bipartisan Ire
Back in the days I was studying sociology, at the University of
Washington, we talked about the Extended Family and the Nuclear
Family. I recall one professor pointing to the invention of the
automobile as a major contributor of the breakup of the extended
family. Young men and women were able to begin ranging further and
further from home. Then Eisenhower undertook funding the nation-wide
network of super highways. With better roads, factories that had
been crowded into small quarters in the inner cities, moved to the
cheaper land outside the limits of the towns and of the town taxes.
The towns, like the example set by the Nation, became expansionists,
spreading their sphere of influence further and further out from
their original centers.
Today we have the wonderful internet. With our quick access to "The
World", we sit in our corner and "feel connected". But like the
automobile, the sense of freedom and connection is an illusion. In
fact, the greater our ability to wander the world, the more isolated
we become individually.
Sure, we have developed faster methods of transporting ourselves
around the globe. We still attempt to head "Over the Meadows and
Through
to
the homes of our childhood, but even the jet age has its isolating
features.
We are jammed into crowded airports, crammed into seats designed for
midgets, treated with indifference, and pushed out into more crazy
crowds at our destination. Or we can point our car toward Grandma's
farm, and spend hours breathing exhaust, and becoming a mass of
jittery nerves in the jumble of traffic jams on the super highways.
Even our attempts to connect with family ends up driving us further
apart.
And the sad thing is that all of this could be corrected. But that
would call for a change in focus. We would need to put People's
needs ahead of Profits. That is, Working Class People's needs. We
know that already the Ruling Class is living the Great American Dream.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/30/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl,
Interestingly, after I wrote my little rant about social breakdown
and impersonal bureaucracies being part of what we are thinking
about when we talk about the loss of Democracy, I stumbled on a
video in my Truthdig email of Bernie Ssanders and Sarah Silverman,
she's a comedienne and a Bernie supporter, doing an hour's
presentation after a talk that I think he gave in California
regarding his book. Anyway, during that talk, he began talking about
what people mean when they talk about loving America, and he said
that it had to do with the feeling of community that people have,
like in the small Vermont town where he lives. He then talked about
the museum in the town with displays of all the different products
that used to be manufactured in the area, and how when things are
manufactured neare where you live, you have a feeling of control.
But, he said, when things are manufactured in other countries, when
they come from all over the world and you don't understand the
process, you feel like you have no control. I suspect that he was
actually trying to talk about what I was writing about earlier, the
impersonality of our society, the fragmentation, the lack of social
interraction and community. The products are coming from elsewhere,
neighborhood.communication.You try to call about a faulty product, or to ask a question about
your charge card, and the customer service person is actually in
India or Costa Rica, but has an American sounding first name and
tries to sound American, only there's something skewed in the
Bernie was just talking off the top of his head, no prepared
comments, so he couldn't really explain what he was trying to say.
By the way, his book, Our Revolution, is on Bookshare, for those who
are interested. I downloaded it, but I'm not quite finished with
Alexander Cockburn's book on the Mid East which is more than 450
pages, and I have a bunch of other books to read as well.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl
Jarvis
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 6:22 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Obama's Support for International Law
Draws Bipartisan Ire
Back in the 50's when I was taking photography at Broadway Edison
VocTech, I came across the Peerless Camera Company. But I couldn't
remember why. I googled it and came up with the name, Willoughby
PEERLESS Cameras in New York. Charles Willoughby was the owner.
Your memories of growing up were not unlike the average family in
Seattle, back in the 40's and 50's. By the time my sisters and I
were teenagers, dad had moved up in the world, from ditch digger to
structural steel estimator.
We moved out of our sagging little cramped rental house and the
folks bought a two story older home in a decent working class
we visited them.For the first time my sisters and I had our own rooms. We began
eating out from time to time, mostly at Dong Ting's Chinese
restaurant in China Town)now called the International District).
Five of us could eat our fill for about five dollars.
While we fell far short of New York City's offering of entertainment
and art studios and theaters, we did have some decent quality live
theater at the University of Washington drama theaters. Professor
Glenn Hughes devised the Theater in the Round and the performances
there were very intimate. The seating was only four rows deep, and
the performers not only worked on the stage, they moved up and down
the aisles and around the back of the theater.
Seattle also had a pretty good opera troupe, and a world class
symphony orchestra.
But what I set out to say is that this all goes to make my point.
FDR had saved Capitalism by forcing the financial giants of the day
to share a bit of their wealth with their employees. That has not
happened under Barack Obama, nor did it happen under Bill Clinton or
Jimmy Carter. Even as Ronald Reagan sounded the cry and the Berlin
Wall came tumbling down, so did the World of the New Deal begin to
crumble.
So many of those social improvements that came from the 30's and
40's were taken back or so altered as to be of no value. Colleges
began hiking up tuition to the point where students owe more in
student loans than their parents owed on their first home.
In a sense, even though my early years were spent as a very poor
child, by my teens we did have the best of the Working Class New
Deal days. Today's children have no concept of life as we lived it.
We were so close to really having that American Dream, but we could
not hold onto the dream, and it slipped away.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/30/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl,back then), because we couldn't afford it.
All that you say is true. But from my own individual perspective,
living as a member of a Jewish working class family in New York
City in the 40's and 50's, we were not shut out of the life of
culture and recreation located a 30 minute subway ride from our
apartment building. We could, and did, attend Broadway theater
shows and concerts at Carnegie Hall. We could eat in fine
restaurants in Manhattan. My father didn't earn much money and my
mother began working as a sales person at Bloomingdale's Department
Store when I was about 13 years of age, but we had access to many
of the same things as did the wealthy. Perhaps, we sat in less
expensive seats, and the fine restaurants were not the finest, but
we could afford, not only to meet our basic needs, but to have a
bit of really lovely experiences as well. I was talking to someone
on the phone today, who told me that she hasn't gone to the doctor
to diagnose what feels like something a bit worse than a really bad
cold, because she can't afford the $40 copay. She said that she and
her husband are paying $1,000 a month for health insurance. Never,
when I was growing up, did we avoid going to the doctor, or having
him visit, (something they actually did
Working people paid insurance for surgery and hospital care, but
not for visiting the doctor. And it wasn't necessary. Also, no one
had to wait 3 weeks for an appointment. Maybe we never had real
Democracy, but what we did have was real personal interaction. If
you called a store or a business, you talked with the owners or
with employees who really listened to what you said and made an
effort to help. The big change is impersonality and huge
bureaucracy. My parents had a group of friends with whom they'd
socialized since they were all young and single. As time passed,
some of those friends became wealthy. Some, like my father, never
did. But the relationships persisted. The wealthiest couple
eventually moved to an upscale neighborhood in Westchester County
where
standards.it anyway".I remember them taking us to visit their friends who were the
owners of a huge company called, I think, Peerless Cameras. These
people owned a monstrously large mansion, very ugly.
But there we were, in their foyer, my father, the man who worked in
a hat factory and my mother, a saleswoman. Those kinds of
interrelationships among members of the different classes, don't
exist anymore. A ticket to a Broadway show costs between $100 and
$200. The working class is splintered.
While we dream about unity, I know, from personal experience, that
many African American folks look down on, and want to have nothing
to do with Hispanics. You don't hear that on Democracy Now or read
it in articles in Truthdig or Common Dreams, but I've heard people
here in Westbury talking, as well as the home health aide who was
working with me. The articles all talk about resisting Trump's
influence and fighting back. The people whom I know, feel that they
have no power, and that there's no point in getting upset about
what Trump will do because, as they explain, "There's nothing we
can do about
Capitalism.suppose.The other day, I've been told, some huge object fell in a local
shopping mall and made a loud sound. Everyone panicked and began
running toward the doors, assuming they'd heard a gunshot or an
explosion. So it's not Democracy we're talking about. It's a
breakdown in our society. It's social fragmentation and fear and
the effect of huge impersonal bureaucracies. We never had
Socialism here and the democracy was limited to small town meetings
and communes, I
But our capitalism within the US was regulated for a while, and itfoundation.
was responsible for a rise in the standard of living for many
families.
The problem is, it kept on evolving to the next stages.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl
Jarvis
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 10:39 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Obama's Support for International
Law Draws Bipartisan Ire
Miriam,
When I run your word, "Democdracy", google takes me to Democracy Now.
I guess that since it's your word, you get to define it.
Without revisiting my long, boring and oft repeated ramble, I only
talk about the two major Political Parties in the framework of an
American Oligarchy. History, even the doctored version which
appears in our Official History Books, demonstrates that the Sacred
Constitution was written with the protection of the Landed Gentry
in mind. Before FDR and the Great Depression, our grand fathers
and great grandfathers had a much keener grasp on this fact. A
ground swell of resistance was building, labor unions were
organized, strikes became more frequent, demands for changes in the
laws that were set in place by the ruling class for their
protection, women gained the right to vote, and on and on. The
Ruling Class fought back, but their highly toted Wonderland came
smack up against the worst depression of all the financial dips
that had plagued the Oligarchy since its
Just as the Working Class was on the verge of toppling the
Establishment, probably through a revolution, Franklin Delano
Roosevelt rode into Washington Town on his high stepping New Deal,
and saved the ratty necks of the Establishment. And they never
thanked him. Instead, Roosevelt's New Deal was proclaimed the
Saving Grace of the People. In fact, the New Deal set in place a
holding pattern, a pause in the unchecked greed of the Ruling
Class, allowing the Establishment to continue holding onto their
flawed
The Empire was becoming the dominate power in this expansionist
government. During the next several decades America moved across
the Western Shores of the Pacific Ocean...more than already had
been done, and great fortunes were being made despite the improved
standard of living by the Working Class. The Second World War and
the never ending wars that followed, created even greater
opportunities for Greed to rake in the world's wealth.
And all this time there were far too many American Working Class
members who bought the Capitalists propaganda that "We" were
spreading democracy around the world.
Bit by bit the Empire and its Capitalists took back that which FDR
had given. What angered me back during those days when Labor
Unions were at the height of their power, that they spent their
time pushing for certain gains among American Workers, without
lifting a helping hand to bring the Workers around the World up to our
different"peace."CEO's.Instead, some labor leaders began slipping into bed with the
corporate
Between sleazy, self serving union leaders, and indifferent
workers, who were kept dancing joyfully with distractions and
glittery gadgets, they came to believe the promise that this
wonderful life would never end.
Now we are living in the end times. That is, the end times of the
New Deal.
And now we look to 2017 as the beginning of a "Final Deal", the
death blow to any hope of individual freedom.
If we were living back in 1900, I would say that we might have a
ray of hope for building a People's Government. But far too many
of us have been drugged with lies and turned upon one another, to
ever hope for a united people's takeover.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/30/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I know. Everyone keeps saying we're about to lose our Democracylaw.
or we only have vestiges of it. I think it's long gone. I think
we've been sold an illusion that is called, "Democdracy".
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl
Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 10:49 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Obama's Support for International
Law Draws Bipartisan Ire
Miriam,
Not only do I not hold out hope for the Democratic Party, in part
due to the fact that it is no longer the Party of the Working
Class, but I hold out little hope for democracy and freedom of
speech in these 50 United States.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/29/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For all of you to whom I sent blind copies of this, what theDemocratic party.
author writes is one of the reasons that I hold out little hope
for the
Miriam
Obama's Support for International Law Draws Bipartisan Ire
Published on Thursday, December 29, 2016 by The Progressive
Obama's Support for International Law Draws Bipartisan Ire by
Stephen Zunes
President Obama speaking at the Ben-Gurion Airport in 2013. (Photo:
The Israel Project/cc/flickr) Here's one way to look at it: The
United States was the only country in the fifteen-member U.N.
Security Council that did not support a resolution passed last
week criticizing Israel for continuing to expand illegal
settlements in the occupied territories.
On the other hand, the Obama administration refused to veto the
resolution-for which it is now drawing fire from both Republicans
and Democrats. This opposition has come despite the resolution
also calling on both the Israeli and Palestinian governments to
prevent violence against civilians, condemn and combat terrorism,
refrain from incitement, and comply with their obligations under
international
The clauses addressing Israeli colonization in the occupiedviolation of this critical international treaty.
territories simply reconfirmed the longstanding consensus that
such settlements are illegitimate. Article 49 of the Fourth
Geneva Convention-to which both Israel and the United States are
signatories-bars any occupying power from transferring "parts of
its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." The
United Nations, through such measures as Security Council
Resolutions 446, 452, 465, and 471, has repeatedly recognized
that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, constitute
territories under foreign belligerent occupation and that
Israel's settlements policy is in
A landmark 2004 decision by the International Court of Justice
also confirmed these Palestinian-populated areas' occupied status
and the illegality of the settlements. In that same ruling, the
World Court enjoined the United States and other signatories of
the Fourth Geneva Convention to "ensure compliance by Israel with
international humanitarian law."
Furthermore, the official State Department position, adopted in
1978 and never repealed, states that "the establishment of the
civilian settlements in those territories is inconsistent with
international law."
But recent U.S. Presidents have been reluctant to acknowledge the
illegality of these settlements. Instead, both Republican and
Democratic administrations, recognizing that the settlements make
establishing a viable contiguous Palestinian state impossible,
have opposed expansion on the grounds that it is "an obstacle to
Peace,""The U.S.-backed peace plans put forward by former CIA director
George Tenet and the Mitchell Commission called for a freeze on
Israeli settlement activities, as did the much-vaunted "Road Map
for
which both the Bush and Obama administrations repeatedly stressed
was necessary to resolve the conflict.
Still, the Obama administration's decision to refrain from
blocking the U.N.
resolution is being lambasted as an act of appalling
irresponsibility.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, insisting that
the resolution was somehow designed to "isolate and demonize
Israel,"
declared that "Our unified Republican government will work to
reverse the damage done by this administration, and rebuild our
alliance with Israel."
Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky,
claimed Obama has sought "to abandon our ally Israel." And
Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, accused Obama of carrying
out a "systemic agenda to weaken Israel and strengthen its enemies."
President-elect Donald Trump has signaled his displeasure with
the resolution, promising the Israelis that "things will be
pressure.Jews'after January 20. Indeed, Trump's nominee for U.S. ambassador toAdministration.
Israel, David Friedman, and his pick for chief negotiator in the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process, Jason Greenblatt, are both
outspoken supporters of the Israeli settler movement.
Meanwhile, instead of backing up Obama, scores of Congressional
Democrats have publicly sided with Trump in criticizing the Obama
Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, the incoming Senateconfounding"
Democratic leader, called it "extremely frustrating,
disappointing, and
for the United States to have not vetoed the resolution.
Representative Steny Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, said he was
"extremely disappointed by this action," insisting it was "wrong
and unjust" to criticize Israeli settlements and for
"delegitimizing
change in U.S.ancient and historic connection to the land."
Other Democrats made similar statements. Representative Brad
Sherman, Democrat of California, referred to it as "an
unfortunate
policy in support of Israel." Representative Alcee Hastings,unacceptable."
Democrat of Florida, called Obama's action "reckless" and
"completely
These Democrats' backing of Trump's position over that of Obama
is not simply a matter of giving into "pro-Israel" political
(Photo:ZunesModerate pro-Israel groups like J Street andAmericansfor Peace
Now joined a wide range of liberal groups in successfully
lobbying the administration to not veto the resolution.
And it certainly does not reflect the views of a majority of
Democrats. A recent poll shows that not only do a vast majority
of Democrats believe that the United States should oppose Israeli
settlements in the occupied territories, 60 percent believe the U.S.
should support economic sanctions or tougher measures, which even
the Obama administration has ruled out.
And
more American Jews support the Obama administration's recognition
that Israeli settlements are bad for Israel that those who
support them.
It appears, then, that the post-Obama Democratic Party will not
only be willing to back Trump's hardline positions against human
rights and international law, they are also willing to ignore
their constituents who support such principles. As a result,
there will be little in the way of checks and balances to deter
Trump from his dangerous foreign policy agenda.
C 2016 The Progressive
Stephen Zunes
Skip to main content
//
. DONATE
. SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Thursday, December 29, 2016
. Home
. World
. U.S.
. Canada
. Climate
. War & Peace
. Economy
. Rights
. Solutions
. #NotNormal
. #NoDAPL
. Bernie Sanders
Obama's Support for International Law Draws Bipartisan Ire
Published on Thursday, December 29, 2016 by The Progressive
Obama's Support for International Law Draws Bipartisan Ire by
Stephen
. 1 Comments
.
. President Obama speaking at the Ben-Gurion Airport in 2013.
different"peace."The Israel Project/cc/flickr)violation of this critical international treaty.
. Here's one way to look at it: The United States was the only
country
in the fifteen-member U.N. Security Council that did not support
a resolution passed last week criticizing Israel for continuing
to expand illegal settlements in the occupied territories.
. On the other hand, the Obama administration Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid. to veto the resolution-for which it is now
drawing fire from both Republicans and Democrats. This opposition
has come despite the resolution also calling on both the Israeli
and Palestinian governments to prevent violence against
civilians, condemn and combat terrorism, refrain from incitement,
and comply with their obligations under international law.
. The clauses addressing Israeli colonization in the occupied
territories simply reconfirmed the longstanding consensus that
such settlements are illegitimate. Article 49 of the Fourth
Geneva Convention-to which both Israel and the United States are
signatories-bars any occupying power from transferring "parts of
its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." The
United Nations, through such measures as Security Council
Resolutions 446, 452, 465, and 471, has repeatedly recognized
that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, constitute
territories under foreign belligerent occupation and that
Israel's settlements policy is in
.
https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/resist-in-2017https://
s
e
c
u
r
e.actb
lue.com/contribute/page/resist-in-2017
A landmark 2004 decision by the International Court of Justice
also confirmed these Palestinian-populated areas' occupied status
and the illegality of the settlements. In that same ruling, the
World Court enjoined the United States and other signatories of
the Fourth Geneva Convention to "ensure compliance by Israel with
international humanitarian law."
Furthermore, the official State Department position, adopted in
1978 and never repealed, states that "the establishment of the
civilian settlements in those territories is inconsistent with
international law."
But recent U.S. Presidents have been reluctant to acknowledge the
illegality of these settlements. Instead, both Republican and
Democratic administrations, recognizing that the settlements make
establishing a viable contiguous Palestinian state impossible,
have opposed expansion on the grounds that it is "an obstacle to
Peace,""The U.S.-backed peace plans put forward by former CIA director
George Tenet and the Mitchell Commission called for a freeze on
Israeli settlement activities, as did the much-vaunted "Road Map
for
which both the Bush and Obama administrations repeatedly stressed
was necessary to resolve the conflict.
Still, the Obama administration's decision to refrain from
blocking the U.N.
resolution is being lambasted as an act of appalling
irresponsibility.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, insisting that
the resolution was somehow designed to "isolate and demonize
Israel,"
declared that "Our unified Republican government will work to
reverse the damage done by this administration, and rebuild our
alliance with Israel."
Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky,
claimed Obama has sought "to abandon our ally Israel." And
Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, accused Obama of carrying
out a "systemic agenda to weaken Israel and strengthen its enemies."
President-elect Donald Trump has signaled his displeasure with
the resolution, promising the Israelis that "things will be
pressure.Jews'after January 20. Indeed, Trump's nominee for U.S. ambassador toAdministration.
Israel, David Friedman, and his pick for chief negotiator in the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process, Jason Greenblatt, are both
outspoken supporters of the Israeli settler movement.
Meanwhile, instead of backing up Obama, scores of Congressional
Democrats have publicly sided with Trump in criticizing the Obama
Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, the incoming Senateconfounding"
Democratic leader, called it "extremely frustrating,
disappointing, and
for the United States to have not vetoed the resolution.
Representative Steny Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, said he was
"extremely disappointed by this action," insisting it was "wrong
and unjust" to criticize Israeli settlements and for
"delegitimizing
change in U.S.ancient and historic connection to the land."
Other Democrats made similar statements. Representative Brad
Sherman, Democrat of California, referred to it as "an
unfortunate
policy in support of Israel." Representative Alcee Hastings,unacceptable."
Democrat of Florida, called Obama's action "reckless" and
"completely
These Democrats' backing of Trump's position over that of Obama
is not simply a matter of giving into "pro-Israel" political
Moderate pro-Israel groups like J Street andAmericansfor Peace
Now joined a wide range of liberal groups in successfully
lobbying the administration to not veto the resolution.
And it certainly does not reflect the views of a majority of
Democrats. A recent poll shows that not only do a vast majority
of Democrats believe that the United States should oppose Israeli
settlements in the occupied territories, 60 percent believe the U.S.
should support economic sanctions or tougher measures, which even
the Obama administration has ruled out. And more American Jews
support the Obama administration's recognition that Israeli
settlements are bad for Israel that those who support them.
It appears, then, that the post-Obama Democratic Party will not
only be willing to back Trump's hardline positions against human
rights and international law, they are also willing to ignore
their constituents who support such principles. As a result,
there will be little in the way of checks and balances to deter
Trump from his dangerous foreign policy agenda.
C 2016 The Progressive
